202 



months remain before sound analytical data will be available to 

 guide these changes is truly unwise. 



We have been assured by the Forest Service that the planning 

 process and the draft plan has and will include alternatives both 

 within and outside of the ANILCA provisions. On this basis, we 

 strongly urge that you allow the planning process these extra few 

 months to provide both you and the Forest Service with the infor- 

 mation necessary to make well-founded land management deci- 

 sions. 



I would like to make a few comments addressing the specific lan- 

 guage of the two bills being discussed today as they relate to two 

 issues, the multiple use concept and the land management plan- 

 ning process. 



S. 346 states that management of multiple use lands could be 

 better served by emphasizing or putting a priority on such uses as 

 recreation, subsistence, old growth ecosystems, wildlife and fish 

 habitat, and cultural and biological diversity. Though these uses 

 are as legitimate as timber and mining, they should not be empha- 

 sized on multiple use lands at the exclusion of others. 



S. 237 potentially affects the land management planning process 

 by mandating the 4.5 billion board foot harvest level and that that 

 level be included in the preferred alternative. While this would ef- 

 fectively maintain the status quo, the Society of American Forest- 

 ers encourages Congress to delay this decision until the planning 

 process is completed. 



S. 346 addresses the land management planning process in 

 detail, and although we are encouraged by the measures in support 

 of the planning process, there are a number of provisions that are 

 troublesome. 



The bill mandates a new planning effort when the current effort 

 already addresses the concerns for nontimber uses outlined in S. 

 346. 



It calls for increased protection of nontimber resources in the 

 planning process when the current process is once again already 

 considering alternatives that place greater emphasis on environ- 

 mental issues. 



It ensures that priority would be given to nontimber values and 

 uses when the planning processes was developed to objectively 

 identify the benefits and cost of all forest values before a preferred 

 alternative is identified. 



To reiterate, the planning process authorized by legislation is one 

 of the most technically sophisticated in the United States. In par- 

 ticular, the Tongass National Forest state of the art geographic in- 

 formation system will allow planners to analyze the interrelation- 

 ships of 26 resources simultaneously. 



The final plan itself will have approximately 24 different land 

 classifications, from wilderness research to mines. 



The 1989 revision will incorporate new yield tables, regeneration 

 tables, biological suitability analyses, public scoping procedures, 

 and sophisticated fish and wildlife models. 



We are fully aware that the planning process is not perfect, but 

 the Society of American Foresters believes it is responsive to public 

 input and is effective in managing conflict and guiding manage- 

 ment decisions. 



