105 



Mr. Lindh. I think that is a helpful administrative tool, but I do 

 not think it really has much business in legislative language. That 

 is my personal judgment. 



The Chairman. You mean we should not provide for buffer 

 zones? 



Mr. Lindh. No, no. Let me continue. 



It was our understanding that there was close to agreement on 

 the mandatory no-cut buffers, and the State now would not object 

 to that being incorporated in Tongass legislation. We believe that 

 that approach would be simple for everybody to understand and 

 implement. 



Everybody can run a tape measure. It is kind of like a 55 mile an 

 hour speed limit; everybody understands what it is. It does provide 

 a minimum level of protection, which we believe has some basis in 

 scientific evidence. 



The Chairman. But the agreement was with reference to classes 

 and defining the classes. Are you saying there is difficulty in defin- 

 ing? 



Mr. Lindh. Well, it is my understanding that there is a discrep- 

 ancy between what Class I was in those discussions last year and 

 the Class I, II, III scheme that's been discussed here today. And 

 perhaps that is an illusion. Maybe I am confused. 



But rather than get into a technical discussion about what those 

 classes mean, it is our understanding that the application of 

 stream buffers to all anadromous fish streams and high value resi- 

 dent fish streams would provide the kind of protection that 



The Chairman. Well, I think that the Forest Service has the 

 streams classed right now all over the Tongass. 



Mr. Lindh. That is correct. 



The Chairman. Everybody knows what we are talking about 

 when we talk about I, II, and III, do they not? Or is there any dif- 

 ference in that? 



Mr. Lindh. I think people that are close to the subject do under- 

 stand, there is no question about that. 



Then I would also like to say that, regarding the land designa- 

 tions, in the Governor's testimony last year it was clear that the 

 State is not supportive of additional wilderness areas to be desig- 

 nated in southeast Alaska. However, we do believe that it is really 

 time to recognize the concerns of some of the smaller communities 

 that are finding these areas close by to be important to them for 

 subsistence, sport, and fish hunting, very important resource 

 values. 



We have done our own, taken our own look at some of these 

 areas and concur with the high resource values that have been 

 identified by the communities, and we do continue to support the 

 compromise proposal which was advanced last March by the South- 

 east Conference. 



We believe that it is probably the best we are ever going to get in 

 the area of a compromise representing the diverse interests of 

 southeast Alaska. 



So with that, I will conclude my remarks, and if you have any 

 questions of Dr. Anderson. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindh follows:] 



