119 



already submitted full descriptions of these areas for the record. 

 Today we also support the addition of a twenty-fourth area, the 

 Salmon Bay Lake Watershed. 



I can assure you there is strong support for these areas from 

 those of us who live in southeast Alaska, and we can see firsthand 

 what is happening to our land. Alaskans have established a clear 

 record supporting lands protection by law. 



They no longer have faith in the Forest Service policies. Current- 

 ly 15 communities, comprising the majority of communities and the 

 majority of population in southeast Alaska, the State of Alaska, all 

 of our regional commercial fishing groups, Sea Alaska Corporation 

 and other Native groups, over 100 tourism-related businesses, and 

 many others supportive legislative protection of key fish and wild- 

 life areas. 



SEACC supports H.R. 987's buffer strip language as the mini- 

 mum standard for areas to be logged. Even the Forest Service 

 states in its most recent planning document that the highest and 

 best use of the timber in the riparian zone is to leave the trees 

 standing for fish protection. 



While buffers are critical, they alone do not provide adequate 

 fish and wildlife protection. Buffers must be established in concert 

 with protection of entire watersheds. 



I ask the Senators to recognize that over half of the highest 

 volume timber, which is also the best fish and wildlife habitat, has 

 already been logged, most of it logged with only minimal consider- 

 ation for fish and wildlife, and only 30 percent of high value fish 

 and wildlife watersheds on the Tongass are permanently protected. 



So many million dollar salmon watersheds are still scheduled for 

 logging. What we are talking about here is saving what is left. 



In 1990 I think it is truly the last stand for many of the key old 

 growth Tongass watersheds. If these areas are not protected by 

 law, the most critical and most fought-over areas will be logged 

 within the next five years. 



I think it is important to state that H.R. 987 does not mean loss 

 of Tongass timber jobs. If H.R. 987 were enacted, the Forest Service 

 timber figures — and they were validated today — show a yearly 

 scheduled timber supply of some 390 million board-feet per year, 

 and that is roughly 100 million board-feet above the average Ton- 

 gass harvest of 295 million board-feet since 1980. 



The revised Tongass plan that we have heard so much about, I 

 am here to tell you that it is in serious trouble. To understand the 

 flaws it is important to examine the basic Forest Service assertions. 



The Forest Service asserts that no matter how much timber is 

 cut, there will be no serious impacts to fish and wildlife population, 

 subsistence, or recreation activities, and no reduction in employ- 

 ment dependent on these resources, and that is clearly stated in 

 this document here. 



I think it is more important to look at the backup data that the 

 Forest Service has provided. We have four of these books that we 

 have analyzed carefully, and I would direct you, as we were earlier 

 directed, to page 5 of my testimony, where it shows the reductions 

 in wildlife. 



