205 



The Society does not eidvocate cne land use over another. Therefore, 

 the renainder of my ocmnents will not eiddress S. 237 or 346 frcsn a land- 

 allocation stcin^ioint, but will address ocnoems raised frctn the perspective 

 of a managers' cibility to practice responsible forestry on-the-ground. With 

 regcird to S. 237 eind 346, the Society is concerned with provisions that 

 address (1) section 705(a) ; (2) the multiple-use ooncqpt; and (3) the land- 

 management plcuming process. 



Section 705. (a) 



Section 705. (a) of ANUTA mrindfltps that $40 million be made available 

 annually to offer 4.5 billion board feet (hbf) of timber per decade. Itiis 

 provision was designed to aisure that an adequate amcunt of timber waild be 

 available for harvest cifter ^jprosdmately 26% of the Tongass' caimercial 

 timber base had been designated as wilderness in 1980. Ihis allowable sale 

 quantity was developed fran timber inventory information available in 1978, 

 whicii indicated that 338 million board feet could be produced on a sustained 

 basis and an additional 112 million board feet could be available with 

 additicffial investments. Only the state of Minnesota, vrtiich receives an 

 annucil appropriation for intensive timber manageanent on lands bordering the 

 Boundary Waters Canoe Area, has received similar treatment in a "wilderness 

 for timt)er management" ujnuuu ise. 



Additional investments can produce more fiber, should that objective be 

 identified, as it was in ANIDCA. Ihis result can cilso be achieved in an 

 environmentcilly sensitive manner. Forest Service statistics point out that 

 intensive investment vrould gedn 34 nnbf froni annucil preccnroercial thinning, 

 60 mmbf fran road building, and 18 nnbf from use of advanced logging 

 tectmology. 



Both S. 237 and 346 repeal the $40 million fund while S. 346 also 

 r^»als the 4.5 hbf per decade harvest level. The Society believes the 4.5 

 bbf is professionally attednable frcm a timber management perspective if 

 funds are made avadlable. However, at issue is the e^jprcpriateness of 

 mandating harvest level targets on multiple-use lands. Ihe land-management 

 planning process should give forest maneigers better information on the 

 effect of this intensive tinber management on other equally important forest 

 resource uses. 



Multiple Use 



S. 346 states that management of miltiple-use lands will be better 

 served by emphasizing or putting a priority c»i such uses as recreation, 

 subsistence, old-growth euubysteans, wildlife and fish habitat, and cultural 

 and biological diversity. Though these uses cire as legitimate as timber and 

 mining, they should not be en^iicisized on multiple-use Icinds at the exclusion 

 of others. If emphasis of one use over another is preferred, such as 

 wilderness or intensive tinfcer management, congressional direction should 

 address it in those specific terms, as ANILC3V currently does. 



