305 



My understanding from what Kate said about the fishing indus- 

 try, they took only a job. If a fishing skipper's job is to man a boat 

 for two months and he manned it for that month, they count that a 

 job, if he manned it for those two months, if he was on his job all 

 the time. 



But it is not year-round job equivalents. So that could account 

 for some of those differences that you are talking about. 



Senator Murkowski. Thank you. 



Mr. Lindh, I am wondering. You have seen the maps; we see the 

 blue areas, which are clearly wilderness, and the realization that 

 there is not going to be any activity through those. How important 

 is it in your opinion and from the standpoint of speaking for the 

 State of Alaska, that some type of transportation or utility arteries 

 are maintained in certain areas where they are not precluded cur- 

 rently by existing wildernesses? 



Is this a significant factor in the opinion of the State and the 

 Governor? 



Mr. Lindh. Yes, Senator, transportation needs for the region are 

 definitely a concern of the State. The notion that areas, that the 

 twelve areas that we have identified be put into a protected no-cut 

 status, that concept would provide for other kinds of activities in 

 those areas. Roads per se would not be prohibited. 



Using the administrative term LUD-II, which was developed in 

 1979 as part of TLMP, there is a provision in that for roads, state 

 transportation needs, Forest Service roads that they identify 

 through their process as part of a forest plan. 



Obviously, Title XI of ANILCA does have a provision for Con- 

 gressional authorization of roads through existing wilderness. But 

 we are certainly not advocating wilderness here. We are advocating 

 something considerably less restrictive, where access needs can cer- 

 tainly be considered in the broader context of land use planning. 



Senator Murkowski. To touch a little bit on the Southeast Con- 

 ference, it is my recollection that as we address consensus you get 

 different meanings depending on what your interpretation of con- 

 sensus is. 



The first vote of the Southeast Conference was six to five, is that 

 right? 



Ms. Troll. Seven-five. 



Senator Murkowski. Seven-five, okay. I was only off one. That is 

 not bad. 



And the second vote was nine to two, is that about right? There 

 were three votes. 



Mr. Lindh. I think those are approximately. I think Mr. Griffin 

 can comment on that. 



Senator Murkowski. Mr. Griffin, can you enlighten us on the 

 difference between the votes? I mean, they both were representa- 

 tive of a consensus. 



Mr. Griffin. The vote on the first one was seven to four. There 

 are eleven members on the board. Seven to five does not add up to 

 eleven. 



The vote on number two was nine to two. A number of the origi- 

 nal members of the board, as I mentioned earlier, switched their 

 vote to vote in favor of the second proposal. 



