114 



In an effort to assist in the development of such a 

 consensus we offer the following comments on the specific 

 provisions of S.346. 



TITLE I: Repeal of Section 705 of ANILCA 



During the ANILCA deliberations of the late 1970's, one of 

 the most difficult issues to resolve was how to designate a 

 substantial amount of wilderness in the Tongass while 

 maintaining employment in the existing timber industry which 

 depended on federal timber supplies. 



Section 703 of ANILCA designated 5.5 million acres of 

 wilderness, including 173,000 acres of high volume timber 

 stands. Section 705 provided a continuing appropriation of 

 no less than $40 million per year to the Forest Service in 

 order to make available a timber supply of 4.5 billion board 

 feet per decade for the dependent timber industry. In 

 addition. Section 705 authorized inclusion of some marginal 

 timber land in the timber supply base to offset the loss of 

 better timber land placed in wilderness. The State believes 

 that Section 705 also intended that the other portions of 

 the Tongass Forest be managed for multiple uses including 

 but not limited to timber harvesting. 



Title I of S.346 would repeal the timber provisions of 

 ANILCA and would create a great deal of uncertainty in the 

 timber industry which depends upon wood supplies from the 

 Tongass National Forest. First, elimination of the 4.5 

 billion board feet per decade supply goal removes the 

 legislative impetus to provide an amount of timber which, 

 aside from depressed market conditions, could sustain timber 

 industry employment. 



Second, returning the Tongass Forest to the normal 

 appropriation process by terminating the Tongass Timber 

 Supply Fund could, on a year-to-year basis, prevent the 

 Forest Service from supplying sufficient timber to the 

 timber industry. 



Finally, the repeal of Section 705(d) would remove from the 

 timber base the marginal timber land which was intended to 

 offset lands designated as wilderness. 



Although we strongly oppose the outright repeal of Section 

 705 at this time, the State believes that it may be possible 

 to modify this section now to give the Secretary of 

 Agriculture greater flexibility in managing the forest. For 

 example, an amendment which was offered to the House 

 Interior Committee would have allowed the Secretary to 

 adjust the timber supply for the decade in each revision of 

 the forest plan based upon his projection of the market 

 demand for federal timber. 



_ ? - 



