419 



old growth forest have been decimated due to the incredible subsidy granted by 

 Section 705(a); crucial habitat for the Sitka black-tailed deer, the grizzly 

 bear, and the murrelet -- all of which, in whole or in part, depend on the 

 maintenance of a viable forest ecosystem for survival -- has been destroyed 

 for our lifetimes, and beyond. Indeed, the resulting destruction of areas 

 once highly valued for other uses has been so great that there is a rising 

 chorus of protest among residents of Southeast Alaska itself -- the very 

 region alleged to benefit by this provision. 



To date, the key provisions of Section 705(a) are opposed by 16 Southeast 

 Alaska communities, the region's major commercial fishing organizations, and 

 all environmental organizations. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

 (ADFG), the foremost guardian of fish and wildlife in the Tongass National 

 Forest, has actively protested numerous timber sales and road building 

 activities in key drainages, which were spawned by the implementation of 

 Section 705(a). 



Compounding the outright environmental damage and destruction of the local way 

 of life for many Southeast Alaskans is the fact that this is an enormously 

 expensive and wasteful program for the national government. As others, many 

 of whom are not "environmentalists" I might add, will explain at some length 

 during the course of these hearings, the provisions of Section 705(a) have 

 resulted in the needless expenditure of millions of federal dollars for the 

 Forest Service's massive timber program. 



Furthermore, mandates such as the 4.5 billion board foot supply requirement in 

 Section 705 tie the hands of the Forest Service. When asked by the Senate 

 Energy Committee if it advocated legislating harvest goals such as the one in 

 Section 705 as a standard management tool for the agency, the Forest Service 

 responded: "As a general rule, no. Legislation with specific management 

 direction reduces our flexibility to respond to changing market conditions." 

 (S. Rpt. 100-548, page 487). 



To put it succinctly, we believe that the case is overwhelming in favor of 

 repeal of Section 705(a). Its major purpose was to protect the timber economy 

 in Southeast Alaska, especially the jobs of the individuals who depended on 

 it. But this has not worked, in spite of the enormous subsidy: employment 

 has dropped since implementation of Section 705(a): from 2,700 in 1981 to only 

 1420, in 1986, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). The GAO 

 comments: "In retrospect, the Forest Service has not needed the added 

 investment strategy to meet reduced demand for Tongass timber. . .from 1982 

 through 1986 the Forest Service could have met total demand solely through its 

 normal investment program." 



The National Audubon Society believes that it is time to face up to the 

 mistakes made, with all good intentions, by the Forest Service in the past. 

 The historic source of the degradation taking place on the Tongass is to be 

 found in the long-term contracts which the Forest Service established with the 

 present two pulp mills back in the 1950' s. At that time and through that 

 vehicle, the Forest Service essentially allocated the southern and most of the 

 northern portion of the Tongass to single-use logging. While the agency 

 professed adherence to multiple use principles, by the mid-1960s it was 

 apparent that an old growth "high grading" operation of massive proportions 

 was underway. 



-3- 



