287 



tion activities to improve forest heath would reveal that the success of several pro- 

 posed programs could be in jeopardy. The other area of project risk for which any 

 analysis is absent is the risk of not implementing a final management plan or ad- 

 ministrative Record of Decision. I am concerned that management inaction, due to 

 potential budget recisions, legal gridlock, or prolonged implementation delays could 

 arise from the need for additional and subsequent fine-scale ecosystem assessments 

 and the forest plan amendment process. For these reasons, I encourage members 

 of this committee and other members of the House to support the completion of this 

 project, the allocation of a one- to two-month period to correct current project defi- 

 ciencies and refocus project emphases, and the smooth implementation of selected 

 programs and activity levels. 



FISCAL STRATEGY AND FUNDING OPTIONS 



The selected ecosystem management strategy should provide optimal achievement 

 of ecosystem management goals with the least cost. Under existing forest and land 

 management plans, many federal programs, such as road maintenance and recre- 

 ation development, and paid for through the sale of natural resource commodities. 

 Where more than one strategy provides the same levels of benefits and services, the 

 one with the least drain on taxpayers is best. Currently, there is no way to deter- 

 mine which proposed strategy is the most fiscally responsible. The preferred alter- 

 native should aim to achieve desire future conditions of federal lands for a cost that 

 federal taxpayers are willing to pay. 



I am concerned about the budget cap that appears to limit proposed spending on 

 various programs contained within alternatives. The notion of using a budget cap 

 is problematic because it is based on old budget paradigms, not on current needs 

 and opportunities. Without full funding of programs, the ability to successfully com- 

 plete projects is in jeopardy. Using the forest health example, where aggressi9ve 

 treatment are appropriate for restoring forest patterns and processes to reduce the 

 potential for large or catastrophic wildfire, ecosystem goals may only be achieved 

 under full funding. The project should identify the levels of activity needed and let 

 policy m£ikers and/or Congress decide how or whether to fully fiind it. 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 



The DEIS's contain poor analyses of social and economic impacts. There is almost 

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

 all alternatives. It is very difficult to believe that economic considerations have been 

 taken seriously in any alternative. It appears that ecological considerations are ele- 

 vated above the needs of people. The amount of detail and number of specific eco- 

 nomic and sociad programs within alternatives are out of balance with other pro- 

 grams. 



The assessment of the demand for recreation of federal land is inadequate for 

 making informed recreation decisions. Yet there is a stated objective in proposed al- 

 ternatives for increasing primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. This 

 focus appears to be out of step with the fact that most recreation demand is for de- 

 veloped facilities, many of which are managed by federal agencies other than the 

 Forest Service and BLM. The demand for developed recreation and increased access 

 to federal resources will undoubtedly in crease as the basin's population increases. 



One of the criteria for defining timber-dependent communities is high dependency 

 on federal timber. There has been an attempt to reduce the nxmnber of communities 

 classified as timber-dependent by reappljdng the dependency criteria to toda/s 

 gridlock situation when federal timber supplies are at a low and, by definition, 

 fewer communities are able to get federal timber. Rather than attempting to elimi- 

 nate communities, efforts should be made to truly identify all local impacts, not 

 mask them. In order to provide a reasonable analysis of impacts, all of the commu- 

 nities identified in the 1987 period should still be considered timber dependent un- 

 less there is some compelling reason for excluding them. 



The project does not adequately address the economic and social impacts on local 

 communities due to the stated reductions in federal timber availability within each 

 of the proposed action alternatives. Depending on the alternative chosen, these re- 

 ductions could range from 21 percent to 64 percent in the Eastside project and 24 

 percent to 75 percent in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The extent of these reduc- 

 tions will clearly result in significant economic impacts, especially at the local level, 

 and will likely cause the project to fail to meet its social and economic goals. The 

 data to assess these impact has already been collected by the project, and needs to 

 be incorporated into the plans. 



Concerning proposed economic goals and assistance programs to local and rural 

 economies in transition, I beUeve that a weU-honed ecosystem management plan can 



