104 



But he intends to be here as soon as he can. 



The Chairman. Without objection, his statement will be put in 

 the record and duly noted the reason for his absence.* So let us 

 begin with Mr. Lindh. 



STATEMENT OF CRAIG LINDH, PROJECT ANALYST, OFFICE OF 

 THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF ALASKA, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. 

 DAVID ANDERSON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 



Mr. Lindh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- 

 mittee. 



I am Craig Lindh. I represent the State of Alaska and I am in 

 the Governor's Office in Juneau. Accompanying me today is Dr. 

 Dave Anderson of the Department of Fish and Game for the State 

 of Alaska. He is here to answer any technical questions which may 

 come up regarding State fish and wildlife resources and the Ton- 

 gass Forest. 



I would just like to summarize briefly the testimony which you 

 have, the written testimony. As this committee knows, Governor 

 Cooper last year in Sitka testified in opposition to all of the bills 

 currently pending before the Senate and various features of those 

 bills and, rather, endorsed the adoption of a compromise which had 

 been developed by a committee of elected officials from municipal 

 governments throughout Southeast Alaska. 



I guess I could summarize briefly the key elements of that com- 

 promise. The Secretary of Agriculture would have the discretion to 

 set the timber supply based on economic conditions, the planning 

 process, et cetera; 



That there would be a $15 million or more annual appropriation 

 to finance intensive forest management in the forest, such as pre- 

 commercial thinning; 



There would be the designation of twelve areas important to 

 local communities, not wilderness, but rather a no-cut designation; 



That there be modifications, rather than cancellation, of the two 

 long-term contracts; 



And finally, that there be an economic diversification program 

 established to help communities in the transition period. 



Today we are focusing on stream buffers and the designated 

 areas. Regarding stream buffers, the minimum 100-foot mandatory 

 no-cut buffers which have been discussed here at some length, we 

 understand that in the negotiations last fall that key conferees 

 were quite close to an agreement on the question of stream buffers. 



Nothing came of it, but we understand that there was close to 

 consensus on the notion that these buffers be provided on all anad- 

 romous and high value resident fish streams in the Tongass. And I 

 would rather not get into the Class I, II, III because I do not tnink 

 that is terribly helpful for understanding. 



The Chairman. Into the Class I, you say? 



Mr. Lindh. I say I would rather just refer to the streams in 

 terms of their fish-bearing capacity, anadromous and high value 

 resident fish streams. 



The Chairman. Rather than the classing? 



"The prepared statement of Senator McClure appears on page 82. 



