206 



The status: The assessment is due in August of this year to be 

 released. And, as you pointed out, this assessment is also to be the 

 framework for a set of broad decisions to be contained in environ- 

 mental impact statements or a statement that is due to be released 

 in August also of 1996 of this year, with a final impact statement 

 and record of decision scheduled for May of 1997, a year from now 

 after appropriate public involvement and modification and terms of 

 that involvement. 



The cost of both agencies together, the BLM and the Forest Serv- 

 ice, is $33 million, including costs expected to be incurred in fiscal 

 year 1997. 



Public involvement in the process has included public briefings, 

 120 workshops, scoping meetings, a newsletter to a 6,550 person 

 mailing list. We have accepted continuous input from people who 

 are interested in the project and drafts of the assessment have 

 been shared. We have shared information specifically with 4 

 States, 22 tribes, and county governments, and there has been sci- 

 entific peer review of the products. 



The types of decisions for the assessment itself: No decisions, but 

 the final impact of statements propose and will propose decisions 

 that would amend the 74 BLM and Forest Service plans that you 

 referred to in your opening statement which would set in place 

 more permanent strategies for dealing with Pacific Salmon inland 

 fish and general goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, and 

 priorities for management of those lands. The decision may also 

 amend the regional guidelines. 



The anticipated results of the assessment itself: Of course, infor- 

 mation for forest plan revisions and site-specific planning and also 

 undergirding this set of proposed decisions that are associated with 

 this particular project. 



Let me just say in conclusion, you had also asked about our in- 

 tentions with additional ecoregional assessments. We have three 

 under way: One in the Great Lakes; another in the Ozarks and 

 Ouachita Highlands; and the third, the Northern Great Plains as- 

 sessments, which are expected to be less costly than these earlier 

 assessments and all are designed simply to be assessments, not de- 

 cision documents, in which the framework will be laid forth for im- 

 proved forest planning and project decisions in the future. 



With that, let me just conclude my statement, and we would be 

 happy to try to respond to your questions. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Unger. We appreciate your state- 

 ment. 



Mr. Hansen. The gentlelaJy from Iowa. I will recognize my col- 

 leagues for 5 minutes each, Christina. Watch the light, folks. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say I have a num- 

 ber of questions. Will we have a second round? 



Mr. Hansen. Absolutely. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. I wanted to ask, Mr. Unger, you mentioned in 

 your testimony that the ecosystem management plans had to be 

 brought forth because there were certain issues not effectively dealt 

 with in the forest plans. For instance, you mentioned the Endan- 

 gered Species Act. What other issues are you talking about and 

 why can't we deal with the Endangered Species Act forest by for- 

 est? 



