APPENDIXES 



Appendix I 

 Responses to Additional Questions 



U-iited States Forest Washington 12th L Independence SW 



Department of Service Office P.O. Box 96090 



Agriculture Washington. DC 20090-6090 



Reply To: 1510 



Date: March 5. 1990 



Honorable J. Bennett Johnston 

 Chairman, Committee on Energy and 



Natural Resources 

 United States Senate 

 Washington. D.C. 20510 



Dear Mr. Chairman: 



At the February 26 hearing on H.R. 987. the Tongass Timber Reform Act. you 

 requested the estimated impacts on harvest volume of a buffer prescription of 

 100 feet on all Class I and those Class II streams flowing into Class I. Our 

 analysis indicates that there is no appreciable difference with regard to 

 Class I streams between our present management prescriptions and the proposed 

 100-foot no-cut buffer. With regard to Class II streams, our present analysis 

 combines the effects of buffers on Class II and the few Class III streams 

 which are included in the National Marine Fisheries policy. This total equals 

 an additional reduction in acreage of tentatively suitable timber land of 

 5 percent above our present manage! ->nt prescriptions. We believe that most of 

 the additional 5-percent impact occurs in the Class II streams, but. at this 

 time, we cannot specifically separate the effects by stream class. 

 Approximately 1 week would be required to determine this information. 



We were also asked to respond to several written questions. Our responses are 

 enclosed. 



Sincerely, 



//. DALE ROBERTSON 



-y Chief 



Enclosure 



Caring to> tha Land and Saoring Paop4« 



■MMHMMM 



(321) 



