297 



Ms. Troll. TLMP, I was getting there. I will just get to it sooner, 

 Senator. 



We believe that the current TLMP process will not result in 

 major changes. The sideboards driving that process are the 450 

 mandate, the 50-year timber contracts. No other national forest has 

 those restraints to multiple use management. 



Senator McClure. I understand that, but why do you not want 

 to wait for the forest management planning process to be complet- 

 ed? 



Ms. Troll. I would like to have fair evaluation of all the alterna- 

 tives, and if you modify the mandate and you modify 



Senator McClure. So you do not like the restrictions around the 

 forest management planning process on the Tongass, so you do not 

 want to wait for the results of that process because the restrictions 

 distort the output, is that correct? 



Ms. Troll. Yes, it skews the results, because one multiple use, 

 timber, has an advantage over all the other multiple uses. 



Senator McClure. I understand. 



Mr. Wilson. 



Mr. Wilson. Senator McClure, Goldbelt supports the TLMP plan- 

 ning process and we do not feel it is unreasonable to ask that we 

 wait a few months to get this information before we can make deci- 

 sions that will be long-term decisions. I think we need and deserve 

 the information base to make those decisions. 



But if things have to move forward now, then we support the 

 Southeast Conference 2 position. 



Senator McClure. All right. 



Now, I started out by saying all of us are a little inconsistent, 

 and I want, before somebody else points it out to me, to confess 

 why I said that. Governor Andrus and I worked out a wilderness 

 bill compromise for the State of Idaho and all the environmental 

 organizations are giving us hell for not waiting for the forest plan- 

 ning process because, after all, obviously the forest management 

 process would produce superior results. 



What it means is they did not like our proposal, and I under- 

 stand that. But there is an inconsistency, just as I may be incon- 

 sistent today in suggesting maybe the forest management planning 

 process would give us some information we do not have now. 



I do not know the answer. I do know for myself one of the places 

 where I start on this process is understanding for myself that when 

 a deal is struck I try to keep it. And a deal was struck in ANILCA 

 that really did deal with the questions of multiple use of the Ton- 

 gass by assigning a great many of those resources to certain kinds 

 of prescriptive management, including wilderness on some of those 

 areas, and concentrating other portions of multiple use upon other, 

 the remaining areas. 



Maybe that is part of the problem. Maybe I have been around 

 here too long and I remember some of those discussions and the 

 actions that were taken here. I find it a little difficult to preside 

 over the violation of agreements which were made, and there are 

 violations. 



Now, not all you folks were at that table when we worked on 

 ANILCA, and I know that none of you are bound by what others 

 may have agreed to some years ago. 



