186 



in dollars and producing resource outputs such as sediment, 

 water, board feet of timber, AUM's of grazing or recreation 

 user days. By applying various management schemes on the 

 basic resource database managers can compare alternatives. 



The basic resource inventory data of the land should not 

 change by alternative and should be available to be reviewed 

 NOW. How can the public have any ownership on the 

 alternatives if the basic foundation they are built on cannot 

 be examined? The outputs by prescription should not change 

 by alternative. if one acre of one type of land is treated 

 in a certain way it will produce certain predictable outputs 

 regardless of which alternative plan is selected. How can 

 this information be "predecisionai? " 



i want to look at the basic resource inventory and see how 

 the horest Service manipulated it to produce their planning 

 database. 1 would like to know that the various management 

 activities being considered are biologically possible and 

 that the outputs and costs are real for the management 

 practices prescribed. How can i determine that if they won't 

 release the data? 1 want to look at the cost and yield data ^ 

 from various prescriptions or management activities to see if 

 they are reasonable. 1 don't see why they won't release this 

 information . 



YOU called for release of the data. You questioned the 

 f-orest Service. Combining their answer with this letter, 1 

 hope you aren't satisfied with their answer. What can we do? 



It impresses me that the public _is_ united in their desires 

 for the management of the Black Hills National (-orest. All 

 the various multiple-use interests have come together solidly 

 and are trying to participate in the planning process to have 

 their wishes heard. I he one exception in this united effort 

 is the sierra Club philosophy which is truely a small 

 minority whose viewpoint is based in pure fiction. 



in closing, i would like to state that I agree with most of 

 the points all the panelists made with the exception of 

 everything the Sierra Club's Mr. Braddemeyer said. 1 agree 

 that the Horest Service should be looking for ways to 

 _i_nci_easfi the ASU (Allowable Sale Quantity) instead of 

 decreasing it. There is not even an alternative being 

 considered that addresses this. 1 agree with the panelists 

 that the ASQ should be 120 — the annual growth on the Black 

 Hills National Forest. A serious omission to the testimony 

 is that there is NO I even an alternative being considered in 

 the planning process that addresses an ASQ of 120. 



Sincerely , 



Kelsey M. Alexander 



