397 



has to be a better mix of jobs, but we also feel that we are going to 

 need some Federal help for that transition. 



Senator Wirth. I understand that, Mr. Campbell, and I think it 

 is a very creative proposal as well that you all put together. I sug- 

 gest, and I do not know if this makes sense, but maybe we can, 

 after the hearing is over, get you and maybe somebody from the 

 fishing industry and somebody from the professional staff to sit 

 down and look at these boundaries and see if we can identify a 

 process. Let me ask you, if you have reactions to this, to identify 

 and see if we can set up some kind of a process where we can 

 maybe come to a pretty rapid resolution as to what ought to be 

 done and what should not be done. None of us is proposing wilder- 

 ness at this point, but what we would like to do is set up a process. 

 If that makes sense, maybe we could have Mr. Campbell and staff 

 and somebody from the fishing industry sit down afterwards and 

 see if we can put together some kind of a step-by-step approach. 



Mr. Privett. We would love to be involved with that, sir. 



Senator Wirth. I have taken much of your time, Governor 

 Cowper, and I thank you very much, but there seem to be some 

 very important schematic areas. We have a plus here in having 

 you here, and I thank you very much. It gives us the opportunity 

 at the highest level to make sure that we are getting this out. 



Once again, let me say how much I appreciate the time you have 

 spent with us, the gracious welcome that was received in Alaska 

 from you and your colleagues and also, Mr. Privett, the very good 

 work of the Southeast Conference. I think you have some very in- 

 teresting ideas that I think we have a chance to build upon togeth- 

 er, and I do thank you very much. 



Mr. Privett. Thank you, sir. 



Senator Wirth. Senator Murkowski? 



Senator Murkowski. I think the record should reflect on the 

 identification of the difference between your figure of 1.5 and mine 

 of 1.7; 1.5 was put in the works in 1980, plus .2 v/as put in monu- 

 ments and that was managed as wilderness. So, when I give you a 

 figure of 1.7, it includes 0.2 in monuments managed as wilderness. 

 So, I think we are basically in agreement on the figures that we 

 are using. 



I would also suggest, as we look at what constitutes prime 

 timber, we recognize that the definition is roughly 30,000 board 

 feet in a given area. That area of 30,000 board feet constitutes 

 prime timber. What the marginal aspects of that are, I assume we 

 can get from professional foresters. 



For the record, I also think it is appropriate to recognize that the 

 cost of the redwoods was initially estimated to the U.S. taxpayer as 

 about $350 million and, so far, $1.4 billion has been expended, and 

 this does not take into account the dollars paid in compensation for 

 loss of jobs and the identification of the area. As indicated, the cost 

 of closing down the redwoods has not resulted in any increase in 

 the number of motels or any evidence of greater tourism in the 

 area. Officially, there has been no appreciable increase. 



So, I think, as we reflect on reality, our collective obligation, my 

 friend from Colorado as well as my friend from Montana, is to rec- 

 ognize that there is a significant burden to the taxpayer. If we 

 were to take out of the existing Tongass timber contracts the areas 



