91 



forever in a safety net that declines and can at any time disappear. The best solution would 

 be to assure a level of management and a % of the total acreage that can be managed, then 

 allow mnnagcmcnt at the local level, xvithout prescriptive ovcrsite. 



In summary, I would conclude that I want the goal of forest management to help create 

 healthy forests for our children, and our children's children. I want us to manage not only 

 for healthy forest ecosystems, but for products, jobs, families, housing products, social and 

 economic benefits. Wc have the best of all worlds when we have a renewable resource and 

 wc know how to cncctivcly manage in a sustained yield, environmentally sound manner 

 that creates our community stability forever. We have a great system that requires us to 

 accept the tradeoffs and responsibilit)' for our commimities demands and not transfer the 

 problems to other continents less able to handle the environmental safeguards. Option 9 is 

 too prescriptive and still is full of assumptions that are not true. I have outlined a few of 

 them to you. Option 9 does not implement a system that requires wood removal for useable 

 products, job creation and community stabilit>', thereby neglecting a valuable part of the 

 equation. The introduction spcUs out the concerns, but the prescriptions and the 

 interpretation are such that there is a general assumption that timber cannot be removed 

 from LSR's and riparian areas. I would refer you to Governor Kitzhaber's letter to 

 Rcpresentntive Jim Bunn, where he describes an interpretation that LSR's are to be 

 protected and not resource production potential and thus, in the O & C transfer, the LSR's 

 would be an administrative and financial burden, without producing revenue to manage. 

 If the LSR's and all but matrix lands arc to be treated like national parks, then we do not 

 need agencies at all, we could transfer all these protected lands to the national parks and 

 only maintain them as paries. That is the attitude by many who do not support wood 

 production on national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. From the 

 beginning, the Option 9 of thePrcsidcnts Forest Plan was interpreted to allow production of 

 wood products and management in riparian areas and LSR's. I suggest that Option 9 of 

 the Presidents Forest Plan be clarified, simplified and less prescriptive, letting the local 

 supervisors have the flexibility necessary to manage and make it clear that wood 

 production is a part uf the management. As a local elected ofGcial who has devoted two 

 terms to helping empower and strengthen local communities. There is a great deal of 



