270 



supply mandate of Section 7 03 of ANILCA constantly do an ond-run 

 of tha standard forest planning prccass. From our perspective, 

 thi» approach to resource management haa placed legitiaats uears 

 and dependents of non-timber resources In an unfair position. 

 we have often been accused of attempting to infringe apon the 

 rather exclusive use of publio lands that a private timber entity 

 feels has already been directly cr tacitly promised to then. 

 The U.S. Forest Service either does not have* or has not exercised 

 to date, the flexibility to manage watersheds important to the 

 health of our salaon resource! 



These issues have been discussed at length by all parties 

 involved and it is obvious at this time that w» have two choices . 

 Ke can all work together to devise a compromise appropriate 

 to all usera and dependents of our national forest system (which 

 is what we prefer to do)/ or wo rren retreat to our respective 

 end rones to do battle (which is exactly what wo would like 

 to avoid) . 



Your office has made dear your position with regard to 

 the 5C year contracts. we still feel the U.S. Forest Service 

 .has not provided the protection we need, in their effort! to 

 comply with their interpretation of their obligations under 

 the contracts, but we do not wish to see the efforts of compromise 

 halted on this point. we are ready to participate in any 

 legitimate and conscientious efforts to find common ground that 

 will give our resource managers the ability to protect, our 

 fisheries habitat and live within the contracts. 



We have been asked to provide to the Interior Committee 

 specific areas that deserve protection as priority fish habitat 

 areas. Southeast Alaska has thousands of various types or streams 

 and tributaries producing five species of salmon, wa wish to 

 point out that all of thase streams are worthy of special care 

 with regard to other resource uses. The overall approach to 

 forest management needs to address all anadrcmoue fish streams. 

 The enclosed list merely identifies areas of immediate concern 

 due to the current cutting plans. 



If the placement of these areas into IUD 3 designations would 

 impact the timber base too heavily, one possible approach to 

 some of these areas would be the establishment of minimum impact 

 tones or some other strategy that recognises the stream-side 

 nabitat priority. 



The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, at the request 

 of the Governor's Office, has provided a list of Class I, n, 

 and m streams to our stats' a office in Washington, D.C. Thie 

 list may also be helpful to the Committee in identifying areas 

 of potential resource use corf Hot. 



