301 



mendous environmental and development pressures that are going 

 to be placed on this process. 



So you are going to get about what you are seeing, and that is 

 perhaps not the best state of affairs. It would seem to me if the tax- 

 payers are spending some 5 to 7 — I thought it was $5 million, but I 

 am told it is $7 million — mandated by law for this evaluation, and 

 we have gone to the trouble of holding I think 30 hearings in 

 Alaska, to hear from Alaskans on what their wishes are — and I 

 think the State Department of Fish and Game, as has been ac- 

 knowledged, has been a major factor in that — it is hard for me to 

 conclude that it has no value. 



I was heartened by the chairman's reflection that obviously it 

 would be something that could be taken up prior to the confer- 

 ences. But that is another matter. 



I just wanted to get that out of my system, because I think it is 

 fair to reflect on it. A point came up I think with Ms. Troll's refer- 

 ence to the position of the fishing industry or the fishermen, basi- 

 cally to do away with, I think you used the word "sideboards," the 

 parameters, to do away with the 450, renegotiate the contracts. 



We could do that. That is in one of the bills, and leave the land 

 designation up to TLMP. Would you find that — in other words, 

 when I say leave it up, leave the recommendations, and then obvi- 

 ously the designation is going to be made by Congress. 



Is that within the realm of acceptance, because that is basically 

 what you said. Mr. Metcalf implied that as well. 



Ms. Troll. We have not reviewed that particular option. The 

 comments that I am making about the set-aside areas are the fact 

 that they are out there and I want to address the political realities 

 that they will be discussed and negotiated once again, and wanted 

 to provide you with the input of the fishing community. 



United Fishermen of Alaska has never talked about the set-aside 

 areas waiting on that particular portion to TLMP, and I would be 

 glad to have that discussion and see where we are on that. 



Senator Murkowski. We would appreciate that and would invite 

 you to reflect on it, and if you care to submit it, why, I think it 

 would be worth looking at. 



Jim, you were around here during the time of the original desig- 

 nation in the eighties, and I do not know what you anticipated in 

 the nineties. But I think it is fair to say that, regardless of what 

 happens, assuming that we maintain the viability of the contracts, 

 that, oh, I think in 14 years one contract will have expired, and in 

 21 years the other contract will have expired. 



So the Congress is going to have a designated additional opportu- 

 nity to address this matter if the contracts are still in effect. I 

 would like to have for the record specifically the notation that 

 these contracts, that each year goes by and they get closer to the 

 expiration of the contracts. 



Another observation that I think bears some reflection is the 

 question of enhancement. I am looking at various references to the 

 Forest Service enhancement, construction of fish ladders, seeding 

 of lakes, concurrent Forest Service fisheries enhancement work 

 that has the potential to bring an additional eight to ten million 

 pounds of salmon into the nets each year. 



