237 



Attachment A 



As you can see the Forest Service is definetly getting closer to a fish habitat protection mode 

 Much of this is due to the political pressure brought on by the Tongass Timber debate. The 

 bottomline is that the Forest Service can implement a 100 foot no-cut butter policy without 

 causing the "big hit" to the timber industry, in fact, If the Forest Service modified the stream 

 standards in the recent Record of Decision to include the 1 00 foot as a minimum and either went 

 into lower volume classes or expanded some harvesting units the Forest Service could probablv 

 maintain the same level of harvest while achieving better fish habitat protection. Through the 

 administrative appeal process, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association nas learned that the net 

 effect o f the Forest Service's altering the Record of Decision to provide 1 00 foot-buffer along 

 anadromous streams and their major tributaries is only an adjustment of 2 1 5 acres out of a 

 total harvest of 6 1 2 .427 acres. These admstments are well within the realm ot onnrj tnrpst 

 management and economic practicality. 



THE BOTTOMLINE OF THIS DATA IS THAT A REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE 1 00 FOOT NO CUT 

 BUFFER POLICY WILL RESULT IN ABOUT A 5- 1 OS RETENTION OF TIMBER FOR FISH HABITAT. 

 Considering that one coho salmon was worth more than a barrel of oil during summer '88, this 

 is a modest investment that costs nothing to leave and returns it's value in fish every 5-5 

 years. Economics justify mutiple use manogment that includes a buffer strip along streams and 

 their major tributaries 



