391 



here in Alaska you have fewer options to develop the local econo- 

 my as long as the Federal Government is the biggest land owner? 



Governor Cowper. I would surely agree with it. 



Mr. Privett. No doubt in my mind, sir. 



Senator Burns. Short question, short answer. Thank you. 

 [Laughter.] 



Senator Wirth. Now I know how you stand on a transition 

 period. I do not know if you have anything else you want to add to 

 that. I know it is difficult. If you are all looking at transitions, 

 therefore, what you end up doing is saying maybe we are not going 

 to have a long-term contract, and I understand your position is to 

 maintain those long-term contracts but we would appreciate any 

 thoughts that you might have on that transition period were the 

 contracts to be canceled. Then what would you recommend that we 



do? 



Governor Cowper. Mr. Campbell can speak to that, sir. 



Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, Senators, on the subject of cancel- 

 ing the contracts and on a transition period, there are a couple of 

 very quick points. First, the long-term contracts are no longer long 

 term; they are in the last stages of their terms. 



Senator Wirth. Last stages, meaning what? 



Mr. Campbell. 15 years and 20 for another one. Secondly, we cer- 

 tainly realize that there may need to be renegotiations of provi- 

 sions within the contracts. Third, we think what has been the driv- 

 ing force that has affected the Forest Service's management has 

 been the mandate to provide 4.5 billion within the framework of 

 the contract for ANILCA. We think that mandate to provide this 

 4.5 has been the thing that has caused problems with the Forest 

 Service's management. What we are advocating is, while the Forest 

 Service has certainly been encouraged to, if they can do it reason- 

 ably, provide up to 4.5, they would more than likely be mandated 

 to provide that timber regardless of all other values. 



Senator Wirth. Just a second, Mr. Campbell. I would say there 

 may be a distinction but not a difference between 4.5 and up to 4.5. 

 You still have a legislative mandate of a target and I have never 

 seen an executive agency, particularly one that is often as timid as 

 the Forest Service can sometimes be, doing anything but looking at 

 that language and saying, okay, that is the framework but that 

 then makes it less. We would have to make less other difficult deci- 

 sions. So, I follow your logic all the way. You said then you wanted 

 to get rid of 4.5. 



Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, getting rid of the 4.5 is not neces- 

 sarily an option. What we have done is now it is a mandate to pro- 

 vide up to 4.5 with strong direction to the Forest Service to take 

 the other values of the forest into account in their decisions on how 

 much timber to provide. I belieVe that is something that has been 

 lacking up to now. 



Senator Wirth. I understand and I appreciate that. In other 

 words, it is left with do we or do we not include 4.5 in the legisla- 

 tive language? And I would think that is one of the most grievous 

 elements, but that again, like I say, depends on where you sit. 



Governor? 



Governor Cowper. I would say that I would probably look on 

 that provision as being something of a fig leaf rather than the 



