109 



MEMORANDUM State of Alaska 



DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

 Craia Lindh Januarv 31, 1990 



,u ANILCA Coordinator DATE: 



Division of Governmental 

 Coordination file NO.: 



Office of Management and   u . r 465-4290 



Budget T , EUEPK0NE:flP ^PinpcT 



,n u^r *^ Sed Southeast 

 ^yj^y suBjbCT . cdnference's Tongass 



Pichard Reed \ .'9D, Reform Act Proposal 



Regional Supervisor 

 Habitat Division Q{ 



Department o f Fish and r.arae • 



from 



\ 



In response to your reouest of January 29, I am providing 

 you with a technical analysis of the fluently proposed 

 chanaes to the special management areas ' itfcfjnjtified by the 

 Southeast Conference (SFC) last year for Sofiaideration by 

 Congress as part of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. A SEC 

 Board member recently proposed changes to the March 1989 SEC 

 oolicy statement. The Board intends to vote on the proposal 

 after approximately one week of community review. 



HISTORY 



The department provided the SEC with summaries of the fish 

 and wildlife resource values of the twelve areas identified 

 by communities as important fish and wildlife use areas 

 (Shea to Ayers, Februarv 16, 1989). These summaries were 

 included in the SEC's 1989 polic statement as the 

 "Descriptions of Special Areas" (SEC, March 10, 1989) and 

 are not repeated in this analysis. 



The SEC recommended to Congress that twelve areas be 

 protected from timber harvesting and roading by establishing 

 them as permanent LUD II areas, as defined in the Tongass 

 Land Management Plan (amended 1985-86) . A T.UD n 

 designation would allow most other multiple uses of national 

 forest land other than logging and roading. 



ASSUMPTIONS 



In order to evaluate the effects on fish and wildlife of the 

 changes to the original twelve areas, it is necessary to 

 further define the most likely management of the areas that 

 would occur if the revised SEC policy, as proposed, is 

 adopted by Congress. For this analysis, we made the 

 following assumptions: 



1) "Multiple-use" areas will be clear cut under guidelines 

 of the National Forest Management Act, given that primarily 

 high-volume, old-growth forest was deleted from the 

 no-harvest areas, and that most uses other than logging 

 would be allowed within Ujd II areas. 



