233 



ditions to desirable or sustainable levels. The project needs to ob- 

 jectively assess how to achieve the goals in a timely and cost-effec- 

 tive manner. Commodity production could be an important means 

 to offset restoration costs without sacrificing environmental quality. 

 The wildlife sections focus heavily on endangered species and 

 stressed species rather than those that characterize the 

 ecosystems. This distorts the description of current conditions and 

 the impact analysis. 



There is a continued bias in documents against the past and fu- 

 ture roles of humans in managing naturgJ resources. 



The project fails to recognize that the agencies have done a lotof 

 things right and that improved best management practices are in 

 place. Also, by inappropriately assuming that the healthiest envi- 

 ronments are achieved by keeping people out restricts many poten- 

 tial uses and benefits. 



The DEISs contain poor analyses of social and economic impacts. 

 There is almost no assessment of the effects of significantly re- 

 duced timber harvests projected for all of the alternatives. 



It is important that this project provide sufficient support of cu- 

 mulative effects to prevent legal challenges to individual projects 

 during plan implementation. The DEISs appear inadequate to meet 

 that need, but we have not had access to the science products, so 

 we haven't drawn a firmer conclusion. 



The broad-scale modeling analyses are suspect. We have found 

 several data compilations and analyses that are seriously mislead- 

 ing and could result in inappropriate management direction. 



Despite their serious nature, we think these problems are fix- 

 able. The project has had the potential to resolve forest health 

 problems and provide sustainable values, but much work is needed. 

 It should take enough time to make corrections, but at a rapid 

 pace. 



The project should give broad but clear direction to future forest 

 management. It should leave sufficient decision space for the indi- 

 vidual forest plan amendment process to address local conditions. 

 The project needs to provide leadership and support to forest man- 

 agers in restoring foresthealth by encouraging local solutions rath- 

 er than ultraconservative, politically safe management defaults. 

 Thank you for your consideration of my comments. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Haislip. You came in right on 

 time. 



[Prepared statement of Mr. Haislip may be found at the end of 

 hearing.] 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Dale McGreer, the committee would like to 

 hear from you. 



STATEMENT OF DALE J. MCGREER, PRESIDENT, WESTERN 

 WATERSHED ANALYSTS, LEWISTON, IDAHO 



Mr. McGreer. My name is Dale McGreer. I am the principal hy- 

 drologist and President of Western Watershed Analysts, a consult- 

 ing firm located in Lewiston, Idaho, that specializes in the analysis 

 of land management effects on streams, and cumulative watershed 

 effects. I have been doing this for over 20 years. 



For the past several years I have been involved with the develop- 

 ment of aquatic and riparian management strategies and the 



