117 



The Chairman. Well, why do you not, before you finish your 

 statement why the State is not supporting the new Southeast Con- 

 ference proposal? 



Mr. Lindh. Well, as I said, we have done an analysis of the re- 

 source values that were identified last March, and we have looked 

 at the kind of input that we have received, that has come in from 

 the communities, both at that time and what has come in more re- 

 cently. 



Based on that, our judgment is that the compromise advanced 

 last spring is probably as good a compromise as we will ever see in 

 southeast Alaska. A lot of people do not support it, but I just do not 

 think we will get any closer than that one. 



The Chairman. Why is this one bad? 



Mr. Lindh. Well, I did not say it was bad, but what I would say 

 is that it is probably less responsive to the diverse community in- 

 terests that we are aware of. 



The Chairman. You say "diverse community interests." You 

 mean it is closer to a consensus of what Alaskans want? 



Mr. Lindh. I would say that. There are very diverse communi- 

 ties, some that are almost wholly dependent on timber for their 

 economy, others that are entirely fishing or partly subsistence. 



Any time you get that kind of spread of interests across the land- 

 scape, it is very difficult to get them to agree on something. We 

 think that as close as you can get to that is what we saw last 

 spring. 



The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Lindh. 



Next, Richard M. Griffin with the Southeast Conference. 



STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. GRIFFIN, ON BEHALF OF THE 

 SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE 



Mr. Griffin. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnston and 

 Senator Murkowski. 



What I would like to do, sir, if I could, is read into the record a 

 letter from Mayor Ted Ferry of Ketchikan, who is the President of 

 Southeast Conference. This was sent to you on February 12th and I 

 believe you have it before you: 



Dear Senator Johnston: 



We thank you and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

 Committee for the hard work you have done on Tongass National Forest manage- 

 ment issues. We also appreciate the consideration and interest you have shown for 

 the original Southeast Conference proposal. 



As your deliberations on the Tongass near an end, we would like to make several 

 points regarding the Conference proposal: 



First, it continues to be the preference of the Conference that disputes over the 

 Tongass land use be resolved through the Tongass land management plan and its 

 revision process. We believe that the TLMP revision process is fair and allows the 

 public to participate. The process assures careful consideration of both local and na- 

 tional interests and leads to the best use and-or preservation of the resources. 



To date, the U.S. Forest Service has spent millions of dollars on the TLMP process 

 and has held meetings regarding the issue all throughout southeast Alaska. 



We acknowledge, however, Congress will probably pass legislation affecting the 

 Tongass before the U.S. Forest Service completes their revision process. If it does, 

 the question is what should it use in place of the Forest Service land proposal, the 

 Southeast Conference proposal or H.R. 987's land proposal? 



We believe that if Congress must act, they should do so with appropriate recogni- 

 tion of existing legislative acts and in ways which will allow the TLMP revision 



