313 



ile consensus, but it is remarkable that it was put together in the 

 eight or so months that it took. 



Senator Murkowski. I mean, is it enforced? Who enforces that? 



Mr. Finney. Let me add to what he said. The consensus group 

 that worked, the steering committee that worked, getting the con- 

 sensus that the State has in their process agreed that a site-specific 

 method would be better, but that the State does not have the re- 

 sources to do that. 



They do not have the people nor the inclination to do it. So they 

 have made some prescriptive buffer strips. But within that they 

 have allowed the operators, the private sale operators, to remove a 

 certain amount of that timber, which amounts to a site by site, a 

 site-specific way of harvesting the timber. 



In other words, they can take out some of the larger trees. They 

 are only required to leave a certain amount of the total basal area 

 within the area that they are going to harvest. 



Ms. Troll. I have to object. There is no statement in the agree- 

 ment that says the site-specific approach is preferred. And what is 

 on private land also goes by channel types, Class A, B, and C, very 

 similar to Class I, II, and III, but with some modifications. 



There are prescriptive standards by those three channel types for 

 private land. For State lands, it is 30 meters. 



Mr. Finney. But again, the prescription is less than the total 

 amount of timber that is within the buffer area, and the operator 

 on private land gets the opportunity to decide up to a certain 

 amount of that that he can remove, which makes it a site-specific 

 management. 



I did not say — I agree with Kate, the agreement did not say that 

 it is a site-specific management. But it in effect becomes one, be- 

 cause they are allowed to adjust it after it is established. 



Mr. Metcalf. Senator Murkowski. 



Senator Murkowski. What occurs to me — just a minute and then 

 I will call on you — is that we have a rather interesting inconsisten- 

 cy here. We have the State coming down, and mandating a position 

 on buffer strips which, I think it is fair to say, the general consen- 

 sus is that it is 100 feet on Class I. 



Is that generally? Mr. Lindh? 



Mr. Lindh. The term that I used, because I think that there is 

 confusion over Class I and Class II, is anadromous and high value 

 resident fisheries. 



Senator Murkowski. But then the State of Alaska, on its man- 

 agement of private land under the Forest Practices Act, has some- 

 thing that is a little less clear, and I am not sure from your expert 

 testimony just what it is, but you hope that it will be better than it 

 was. 



But it is less than a mandatory 100-foot buffer, even though the 

 United Fishermen of Alaska and others are urging that they have 

 something similar. Is that a fair generalization? 



Mr. Lindh. Senator, you understand that that proposed legisla- 

 tion is a result of consensus between some very differing interests, 

 and consequently 



Senator Murkowski. Some of them are in the back room. 



Mr. Lindh. Yes, right. 



