207 



"Die Scx:iety heis been monitoring the Tongass Land Management Plan 

 revisicsn and believes forestry professicnals are maJcing a good faith effort 

 to inventory the oonditicxi of all forest resources and, more iitportantly, 

 develop alternatives with and withcxit the oanstraints inposed by ANILCA. In 

 particular, the Forest's state-of-the-art geographic information system will 

 allow planners to analyze the interrelaticffiships of 26 resources 

 simultaneously. Ttie final plan itself will have approximately 24 different 

 land classifications fran wilderness reseeircli areas to mines. Additionally, 

 the 1989 revision will incorporate new yield tables, regeneration tables, 

 biological suitability analyses, public scxaping procedures, and 

 scphisticated fish and wildlife models. 



Developing a land management plan is a long and ocaiplex process that 

 takes years of inventory, einalysis, and develcpnent of alternatives. The 

 planning effort on the Ttngass, v*d.cii has incorporated extensive public 

 involvement frtan citizens throughout the nation, is nearly corpleted. Ihe 

 Society asserts the draft plan should be released before it is criticized as 

 it is in S.346. 



Oonclusicn 



In re^xjnse to forestlcind management and program controversies in the 

 1970s, Congress enacted RPA and NPMA. Bie planning process authorized by 

 legislation is one of the most technically sophisticated in the United 

 States. Althou^ the planning process is not perfect, the Society believes 

 it is responsive to public input and is effective in managing conflict and 

 guiding management decisions. 



The Society believes the existing land-management planning process as 

 the most c4:prcpriate vehicle for making changes in special provisions for 

 the Tongass Nationcil Forest. Vfe are especially ooncemed that any 

 legislation that interferes with this process would have negative 

 itiplications for professicnal Icind management throu^out the nation. 



It is iitportant to understand that the Society took a similar position 

 on the original version of the Winding Stair Mountain National Recreation 

 and Wilderness Area Act vAiere "public enjoyment" and "aesthetics" were given 

 priority over wildlife in an action apart fron the planning process. The 

 Society feels that oongressianally mandating rescurce uses, with the 

 exc^xtion of wilderness vAiere it is required, is not consistent with the 

 spirit of the RPA and NFMA. In additicai, the Society feels the Forest 

 Service's public involvement programs provide cin adequate vehicle for 

 incorporating public cpinicxi. The integrity of forest planning is at stake. 



Ihank you for this cpportunity to present our views. We would be happy 

 to answer any questions you may have. 



