286 



These are forests structures that provide the basic components for producing the 

 older forest structures that are in relatively short supply. Through treatments to re- 

 duce health risks, these intermediate structures advance more quickly into the more 

 complex structures that are currently underrepresented. many of these intermediate 

 structures offer commercial products as by products of forest health treatments, 

 thereby increasing the operational and economic feasibility of the treatments. With 

 knowledge of an accurate inventory of forest health conditions, various types of sil- 

 vicultural can be applied to improve forest ecosystem health. Foresters and sci- 

 entists have long contended that anticipatory management strategies would improve 

 stand vigor and health. 



We developed a GIS-based hazard/risk rating system that, when combined with 

 a forest ecosystem diversity matrix and portrayed on large scale maps, seems to be 

 valid for (1) identif3ang the relative magnitude of integrated forest health hazards 

 and risks, (2) revealing the types of forest at greatest risk, and (3) directing man- 

 agement activities to locations where probabilities of health problems are greatest. 



In our analysis of the four Blue Mountains forests, we showed that high hazard/ 

 risk forests ranged from 10 to 22 percent of all forests. When high and medium haz- 

 ard/risk areas are combined, it appears that 59 to 72 percent of Blue Mountains for- 

 ests would benefit from various t5T)es of anticipatory or remedial treatments to re- 

 store or maintain forest health. Although these estimates present a sizable chal- 

 lenge to resource managers, the estimated forest Eirea undoubtedly would have been 

 greater had tree mortality data and several years of insect and disease conditions 

 reports been incorporated into the hazard/risk rating system. 



Our analysis shows that a significant proportion of the Blue Mountains forests 

 contgiins medium or high hazards relating to forest health. Presumably, public policy 

 decisions based on these analysis results would promote management levels in eco- 

 system management strategies commensurate with achieving successful ecosystem 

 restoration. Short- and long-term actions that incorporate forest health restoration 

 strategies would include levels of management activity to address current problems 

 and avoid future ones. Short-term management actions increase the likelihood of ex- 

 isting high hazard forests eventually reaching desired ranges of future conditions 

 specified in forest planning documents. Long-term strategies involve maintaining 

 forest health hazard and risk levels within acceptable Umits. 



Ironically, the levels of timber harvest proposed in ecosystem management strate- 

 gies for federal lands in the Interior Columbia River Basin show reductions from 

 past trends, yet increases are needed to address identified restoration needs. In fact, 

 the proposed reductions for the Blue Mountains range from 27-99 percent of levels 

 allowable by existing forest management plans, on an area basis, depending on the 

 selected strategy. This translates to roughly 60 to 23,000 acres per year of forest 

 land managed for timber harvest. Proposed precommercial thinning and prescribed 

 burning activities would only double or triple the area of forest treated to restore 

 forest health. When compared to the 571,969 acres of forest determined by our study 

 to be in the high hazard/risk category and the sizable forest area in the medium 

 hazard/risk category, one wonders whether restoration of forest and ecosystem 

 health will receive the priority and level of activity that are needed to succeed. Can 

 it be that management activity levels for forest ecosystem health will be regulated 

 by arbitrary federal budget caps, not restoration opportunities and needs? 



RISKS AND TRADEOFFS 



For each management standard or guideline within the alternative ecosystem 

 management strategies, there are identifiable and quantifiable risks of not achiev- 

 ing project goals and objectives. Also, where the implementation of management 

 standards and guideUnes is in conflict, there are likely to be tradeoffs in project per- 

 formance and negative consequences for certain expected outcomes. These risks and 

 tradeoffs have not been clearly or thoroughly exposed in the impact analysis, but 

 the information is critical for evaluating the abUity of the alternatives to meet the 

 project needs. 



For example, riparian and aquatic management standards and guidelines have 

 potential to conflict with those of other programs, such as forest restoration and tim- 

 ber harvest activities. In part, this is a direct result of the ICBEMP's attempt to 

 maintain management flexibility on the ground. But it is not clear how the impact 

 analysis addresses the effects on project goals when only partial implementation of 

 programs is performed. 



There are two additional areas of risk that may affect the achievement of project 

 goals. One was alluded to earlier; that is, the risk of not achieving desired future 

 ecosystem conditions if federEil forest and land management programs are not fully 

 funded. I suspect that risk analysis of proposed budget constraints on forest restora- 



