235 



that only 5 percent of the Basin hes within riparian areas as de- 

 fined by the draft strategies. 



Estimates of the effects on resource management programs were 

 based on this percentage within the draft Environmental Impact 

 Statement. However, maps where all streams are shown reveal 

 that 20 percent or more of the dry forest area lies within riparian 

 management areas in dry forest environments, with as much as 70 

 percent of total watershed area in wet forest environments. 



These fundamental problems with analj^ical scale — and I pro- 

 vided only one example — lead to unrealistic estimates of effects on 

 resource management programs such as grazing, mining and tim- 

 bering. Problems with scale in the analysis also limit the 

 ICBEMP's ability to recognize management actions necessary for 

 effective management of forest health and wildfire, and to provide 

 management direction to the National Forests and ELM Districts, 

 fundamental goals of the project. 



In conclusion, the Forest Service and ELM will not achieve nec- 

 essary ecosystem management goals unless riparian management 

 areas are realistically defined and actively, but cautiously, man- 

 aged. If they are not managed, aquatic and riparian areas will con- 

 tinue to be devastated by unnaturally intense wildfire. 



Detailed impact analysis is needed. The effects predicted must be 

 verified locally. The Forest Service and ELM will continue to be 

 gridlocked and unable to take the necessary management actions 

 with in many riparian management areas if their management au- 

 thority responsibilities are not reaffirmed and elevated. 



Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you this 

 morning. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. McGreer. That was very inter- 

 esting testimony. I am privileged to hear both of your very inform- 

 ative testimonies. 



I wanted to ask Mr. Haislip, can you define for me what 

 ecosystems are? 



Mr. Haislip. Well, it depends on whether you are a biologist or 

 not. As a biologist, when I grew up, ecosystems tended to be more 

 biotic communities and the physical communities around them, but 

 for the purposes of — for the purposes of this project, ecosystems 

 have been expanded, and appropriately so I think, to include not 

 only the biological systems and physical systems, but also the so- 

 cial systems. So it includes all three of those major components 

 that make up the world around us. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. You mentioned that the report was biased 

 against humans — human impact on the land. 



Mr. Haislip. Yes. We are seeing language in there that would 

 suggest that people have caused a lot of the problems in the past; 

 and in some cases, they have, but in a lot of cases, they haven't. 

 So we seem to see too much of that kind of language in the docu- 

 ment, indicating that, you know, people are the cause of it. And 

 that isn't always the case and people have part of the solution, we 

 believe; and the documents — at least early ones we have seen — 

 don't seem to give full recognition of that. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. You mentioned also you did not have access 

 to any of the scientific data. Can you elaborate on that? 



