23 



The House bill also hides behind a legitimate concern about the 

 viability of fisheries resources and attempts a new kind of land grab -- 

 "buffer strips". Mandating a one hundred foot no cut zone along side a 

 stream bank to protect fish habitat does not sound like to much to ask. 

 and I support this. In fact, this is exactly what the Forest Service does 

 and more on a site specific basis right now. But this is not what the 

 House buffer strip provision is about. The provision in the House bill 

 requires a latticework of 200 foot no cut zones following every river, 

 stream, and smallest creek in the forest regardless of whether there 

 are fish affected. In Southeast Alaska, where the slopes are often 

 steep and it rains up to 200 inches-a year we have a lot of small 

 streams and creeks. Many with no resident or anadromous fish and no 

 impact on fish habitat. 



The 1978 Tongass National Forest plan balanced wilderness, fish 

 and wildlife habitat protection and multiple use. The Forest Service 

 found that the Tongass forest could produce over 10 billion 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 reserving over half of the forest for other uses 

 not directly compatible with timber management, including 

 wilderness preservation. 



But when this Committee indicated in 1979 that it preferred 5.4 

 million acres of wilderness, including much of the most accessible 

 timber, the Forest Service responded that it would have to further 

 reduce the amount of timber available from 4.5 to 3.38 billion board 

 feet per decade. The wilderness areas proposed by Congress would 

 reduce available timber by 112 million board feet each year and cost 

 Southeast Alaska jobs. Searching for a way to mitigate the impact of 

 wilderness on the livelihood of Southeast Alaska residents, this 

 Committee, but primarily Senators Jackson, Tsongas and the senior 

 Senator from Alaska Ted Stevens, worked with the Forest Service to 

 formulate what is now ANILCA Section 705. 



Under this provision of ANILCA, the Forest Service would be 

 given the funds, an appropriation at least $40 million each year, and 

 authority to include additional timber, economically marginal because 

 of its remoteness and quality, into the timber base. Without this 

 special assistance and direction, this additional timber would be 

 considered economically unsuitable for inclusion in the managed 

 timber base. Including additional economically marginal timber lands 

 into the timber base, termed intensive management, raised the 

 sustained yield capacity of the multiple use forest, outside wilderness, 

 from 3.38 to 4.5 billion board feet per decade and avoided economic 

 dislocation in Southeast Alaska. 



