293 



included a letter from a timber company that said: "It is our un- 

 derstanding that the revisions to these areas were in large part the 

 result of a coordinated effort put forth by the Alaska Loggers Asso- 

 ciation." 



That is certainly the understanding that the fishing associations 

 had when we looked at the proposal. We noticed a surprising simi- 

 larity. 



I would also like to point out that the past Executive Director of 

 the Southeast Conference, Mr. Jim Ayers, adamantly opposed this 

 rushed revision because it deviated dramatically from the open de- 

 liberative process that was conducted earlier. 



The Chairman. Let me interrupt to ask an important question, 

 because I do not want to hog all the time here. Let me just ask one 

 more question of you, Ms. Troll. What interest do the fishermen 

 have beyond adequate buffer zones? 



Ms. Troll. We have an interest in multiple use management of 

 the Tongass National Forest. When one use, such as timber, has a 

 Congressional mandate, we feel it kind of tips the scale a little bit. 



We would like to see the long-term contracts renegotiated. We do 

 not favor cancellation. But when you have 



The Chairman. Eut I mean, is that in your capacity as a resident 

 of Alaska or as a fisherman? 



Ms. Troll. Both. 



The Chairman. In other words, really the question is, if you pro- 

 tect the buffer zones, why is timbering bad? How does it affect the 

 fisheries? 



Ms. Troll. Well, we feel that buffers are essential for areas that 

 will be logged and, as I stated in my testimony, we also feel that 

 there are certain areas where the fisheries production is so high 

 and so valuable that that in itself merits it to be retained in its 

 natural state, that the watershed should be retained. 



We do not feel that our position is anti-logging, that logging is 

 bad. What we are trying to get is the prudent management. 



The Chairman. Well, I know, but in effect you are saying that a 

 100-foot buffer is not enough? Or if you have a 100-foot buffer and 

 Class II's that go into the Class Fs and they are all protected, why 

 does logging affect the fishery, or how does it affect it? 



Ms. Troll. Okay. For those areas that will be logged with that 

 type of protection, we feel that almost all of the logging impacts 

 would be appropriate mitigated, okay. Now, in areas such as some 

 of these important set-aside areas, the Katashan, the Chuck River 

 for example, you would also have road building that would be asso- 

 ciated with any activity outside of the buffer, and road construction 

 and building have also impacts on fis] habitat. 



Once you have a road in there, then you have to justify the eco- 

 nomics of keeping that road, which we have seen happen time and 

 time again: Well, we start logging in more and more areas. 



So we feel that in the big picture balance that certain areas 

 should be set aside for fisheries values, really for multiple uses. I 

 mean, I just concentrated on the fisheries values and my testimony 

 does that, but these areas are being asked for set-asides for more 

 than fisheries values. 



The Chairman. I apologize to my colleagues for taking so much 

 time, and actually I apologize to you all. I am going to have to 



