122 



by Alaska Department of Fish and Game as "one of the highest value wildlife areas on Prince 

 of Wales Island." This valued fishery, recreation, and subsistence use area definitely deserves 

 permanent protection. Please remember that Prince of Wales Island has been heavily logged 

 with little consideration for fish and wildlife values, making this area that much more valuable. 



We submitted full descriptions of all these areas for the record last year. We have also 

 provided information on Salmon Bay Lake to Committee staff. For the record we are 

 submitting descriptions of the areas prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game that 

 were given to the House Interior Committee in March 1989. (Attachment A) 



Overall, the total impact of setting aside these 24 areas by law on the annual scheduled timber 

 supply would be 50 million board feet per year. (Attachments B and C) These are the most 

 valid numbers and are based on Forest Service VCU printouts. These numbers are solid until 

 the Tongass Plan Revision is completed, and may very well prove more reliable than the new 

 timber data being used in the Revision. (Attachment D) Forest Service testimony before the 

 House Interior Committee in 1989 was in the same ball park at 53 million board feet per year, 

 the major difference being how Yakutat Forelands was calculated. (Attachment E) SEACC 

 used a 1986 timber base inventory from a Management Area Analysis -- the Forest Service 

 used their 1979 data base. (Early estimates from Forest Service officials presented at Analysis 

 of the Management Situation (AMS) briefings regarding H.R. 987's impact on tentatively 

 suitable timber lands, which includes all LUD I Releases and LUD lis, is 20% of a total 

 potential supply of 580 million board feet per year. This would leave 464 million board feet 

 per year potentially available for timber harvest — actually larger than the current 450. Also 

 under the AMS Maximum Timber Harvest Alternative, the Wilderness set-asides (including 

 LUD Is and Us) would amount to 77 million board feet/year -- leaving over 700 million board 

 feet/year available for harvest.) 



H. BUFFER ZONES 



SEACC supports H.R. 987's buffer zone language as the MINIMUM management standard for 

 areas that are allocated to logging and road building. 



Buffer zones do not provide enough protection to guarantee the integrity of critical fish and 

 wildlife watersheds. Buffer zones cannot and should not be used as a substitute for protection 

 of entire watersheds. If only buffer zones were protected, the Forest Service would be able to 

 continue targeting the high volume old-growth forests at low elevations (below 500 feet) and 

 within riparian and beach fringe zones. These are the most important wildlife habitats. 

 Buffers simply do not go far enough to protect critical wildlife habitat such as old growth for 

 bald eagles, critical old-growth winter range for deer, and important old-growth riparian zones 

 critical for brown bears. They do not provide enough protection for areas of unstable soils and 

 steep slopes. Buffers alone certainly will jiol protect the scenic, recreation, nor subsistence 

 values of the most important and threatened watersheds in the Tongass. 



In short, buffers should be viewed as a complement to the needed additional protection of key 

 fish and wildlife watersheds -- not a substitute. Furthermore, the impact of protecting buffers 

 as in H.R. 987 would only require set-aside of some 4% to 6% above the current Forest Service 

 management practices. This is a small impact on timber with a bjg benefit to salmon. 



We understand that the Forest Service, however, is now claiming a 20% impact on the timber 

 base. This is a deliberate attempt to misconstrue the U.S. House's intentions as they were 

 stated on the House floor. It is interesting to note that the Forest Service's AMS actually 

 makes a strong case for no-cut buffer zones. The document shows, from both an 

 environmental and an economic standpoint, that timber should Qoi be cut within the riparian 

 zone. 



