TABLE 15— COMPARISON OF FORESTRY RELATED ELEMENTS BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE PLANS (cont'd) 

 CTJiRK FORK OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 



Account Plan 



Element and 



Effects 1/ 2/ 



Difference of 



Preferred--vs. Development Preferred Environmental 

 Development Plan Plan Plan Plan 



Difference of 



Preferrcd--vs. 



Environmental Plan 



Thousands of Dollars 



III . Regional Development Account 



A. Primary Value to Users 



1. Basic industry \l 



2. Forest production 



3. Recreation 



4. Resource preservation 



Total Primary 



B. Secondary Income Value to Basin 



1. Basin industry 1/ 



2. Forest production 



3. Recreation 



4. Resource preservation 



5. Environmental installation 



Total Secondary 



74,900 



74,900 



36,900 



35,700 



1,840 



460 



74,900 



6,010 



73,185 



79,195 



6,010 



73,185 



C. Net New Full-Time Jobs 



1. Forestry 



2. Recreation 



3. Erosion control 



4. New manufacturing 



5. Other USDA programs 



Total New Jobs 



D. Regional Economic Base from 

 Improved Forest Production (acres) 



E. Total Plan (1,000 Dollars) 



1. Federal cost (annual) 



2. Regional cost (annual) 



3. Total cost (annual) 



None 

 None 

 80 

 None 

 None 



1,000 



100 



None 



6,152 



18 



Units as Shown 



1,000 



100 



80 



6,152 



18 



None 

 None 

 80 

 None 

 None 



1,000 



100 



None 



6,152 



18 



80 



+ 6,623 

 + 23,575 

 + 30,198 



7,270 



30,928 

 32,391 

 63,319 



7,350 



37,551 

 55,966 

 93,517 



7,147 

 27,464 

 34,611 



IV. Social Well Being Account 



Life, Health, and Safety 

 Improved water quality (miles) 



Recreational Opportunities 



1. New fishing access (sites) 



2. New public land access (sites) 



3. Improved recreation quality 



7,270 



H, 150, 000 



30,404 

 28,502 

 58,906 



40 

 None 

 None 



1/ In some cases the listed values contain effects from more than just the forestry plan elements. For example, 

 basic industry and new manufacturing values are largely unrelated to the forestry program although increases in 

 forest production, in wood utilization, and in more secondary manufacturing of wood products within the basin would 

 make some contribution to the values shown. The reason for including these values is to bring into perspective the 

 independence of national population projections that have been disaggregated to subnational areas and the natural 

 comparative advantages of subnational areas to provide basic employment for these populations. In this case the 

 forests alone are not capable of supporting the employment for the population projection used for this study. The 

 same applies to the farming sector. The only other historical source of basic employment in the Clark Fork River 

 Basin is the mining sector which, in spite of recent deadlines, has the mineral resources capable of supporting 

 considerably larger levels of basic employment. Other than this basin, the only other source of significant basic 

 employment would be the development of non-land-resource-dependent industries such as in the area of electronics, 

 education, and cottage industries. 



2/ In some cases the listed values contain effects from more than just forest land. 

 wildlife habitat and fishing access sites can be some distance from forest lands. 



For example, riparian lands. 



3/ None means zero. 



V The USDA portion of these values are: $36.6 million benefits and S36.4 million costs. 



-32- 



