283 



project goals and objectives. These are critical for evaluating the ability of the 

 alternatives to meet the project needs. 



4. The projected amounts of restoration and commodity output have been 

 constrained by anticipated agency budgets, but the documents do not identify activity 

 levels needed to fully restore ecosystem conditions to desirable or sustainable levels. The 

 project needs to objectively assess how to achieve the goals in a timely and cost effective 

 manner. Commodity production could be an important means to offset restoration costs, 

 without sacrificing environmental quality. 



5. The wildlife sections focus heavily on endangered and stressed species, rather 

 than those that characterize the ecosystems. This distorts the description of current 

 conditions and the impact analysis. 



6. There is a continued bias against the past and future roles of humans in managing 

 natural resources. The project fails to recognize that the agencies have done a lot of 

 things right and that improved best management practices are in place. Also, by 

 inappropriately assuming that the healthiest environments are achieved by keeping people 

 out restricts many potential uses and benefits. 



7. The DEIS's contain poor analyses of social and economic impacts. TTiere is 

 almost no assessment of the effects of significantly reduced timber harvests projected for 

 all alternatives. 



8. It is important that this project provide sufficient knowledge of cumulative effects 

 to prevent legal challenges to individual projects during plan implementation. The 

 DEIS's appear inadequate to meet that need, but we have not had access to the science 

 products yet to draw a firmer conclusion. 



