123 



TOTAL IMPACTS OF BOTH LANDS PROTECTION AND MANDATORY BUFFERS : 



The combined impact on the scheduled timber supply of setting aside the 24 areas and 

 providing minimum buffer zone standards results in a 13-14% reduction of the currently 

 scheduled Tongass timber supply. (Calculation of this estimate provides that buffers and 

 Wilderness are not double-counted because there is considerable overlap.) This leaves 390 

 million board feet per year available right now (and this number could be higher after the 

 Tongass Revision re-allocates more lands for timber cutting). This is roughly 100 million 

 board feet above the annual average Tongass harvest of 295 million board feet per year (this 

 also includes the "record" year of 1989 with 377 million board feet cut). Therefore no existing 

 Tongass dependent timber jobs would be lost bv comprehensive legislation . In fact, this leaves 

 enough timber to allow an increase in the number of Tongass dependent jobs. 



Helen Clough, Chatham Area District Ranger, stated in an April 20, 1989 radio interview: 

 Timber Harvest on the Tongass in 1988, a good year for the milk, was less than 400 million 

 board feet. Even if the most extreme environmentalist bill were to pass, there would, 

 theoretically, still be about 400 million board feet per year in the the Tongass timber base. 

 Perhaps more. ...There are areas where timber harvest is currently administratively prohibited 

 but that we could make available for timber harvest if we so desired." 



These are responsible and reasonable protective measures, especially when you consider the 

 strong support from and by Alaskans for legislated protection of key fish and wildlife areas. 



ALASKAN SUPPORT FOR CHANGE: 



When Senator Wirth introduced S. 346 he stopped short of proposing Wilderness protection, but 

 he did say. There is a strong case for permanently protecting these areas. ...I look forward to 

 hearing from Alaskans who know and depend on these areas...* 



The response from Alaskans is impressive. A review of the Committee's field hearing record 

 and official resolutions and correspondence reveals that IS communities (comprising the 

 majority of communities and majority of population in Southeast Alaska), the Governor/State 

 of Alaska, all our region's commercial fishing groups, Sealaska Corporation and other Native 

 groups, tourism organizations, and many others support legislated protection of key fish and 

 wildlife areas. Some supported Wilderness, other supported legislated LUD lis. But Alaskans 

 wanted protection by law — they had no faith in Forest Service planning. (Attachment F) 



We do appreciate Senator Murkowski publicly voicing his support for setting aside important 

 land areas. Unfortunately in 1989 Senator Murkowski refused to advocate protection of the 

 core areas of several critically important fish and wildlife watersheds. Today we respectfully 

 urge him to reconsider his positio n and restore these critical areas to at least the boundaries 

 advocated by the State of Alaska. Otherwise, the gutted proposals for Kadashan, Nutkwa, 

 Lisianski River, and Calder-Holbrook will have tragic results for the small communities of 

 Hydaburg, Pelican, Tenakee Springs, and Point Baker which depend on these areas in their 

 natural condition and support their protection. Logging the Chuck River valley will also cause 

 disasterous results and impact the fishing community of Petersburg. Restoring protection for 

 the core of these areas would truly honor the concerns of these Alaskan communities. 



There was some concern expressed by Senator Murkowski that set-asides would restrict road 

 access. The facts do not support much concerns. Attachment G addresses this issue in detail. 



THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE DOE S NOT REPRESENT PUBLIC OPINION : 



There will be attempts today to tout the "new" Southeast Conference position as a great 



