293 



BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

 OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 



Regarding ecosystem 

 study projects in the 

 Interior Columbia Basin 

 Sierra Nevada & Appalachia 



Statement of Mary Scurlock 



Pacific Rivers Council 



921 S. W. Morrison St., Suite 531 



Portland, Oregon 97205 



503-294-0786 



The Pacific Rivers Council is vitally interested in the issues being raised before this subcommittee. 

 We have been active in following the development of two of the regional ecosystem planning 

 projects now underway: the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Management Project and the Interior 

 Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Our testimony focuses primarily on the 

 Columbia Basin Project. 



We would like to touch on several issues which have been raised by members of Congress in 

 relation to these and similar projects. First, there is no question whatsoever that the federal land 

 management agencies are authorized to conduct these planning projects. (We note that no 

 testimony has been offered to support such a contention). Rather, protection, recovery and proper 

 stewardship of natural resources is required by NFMA, FLPMA, ESA, CEA, and other federal 

 law that mandateds the mission and responsibilities of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

 Management. Secondly, while regional ecosystem planning may be more costly in the short-term, 

 if property conducted it should produce long-term savings. Third, rivers, streams and fisheries 

 will continue to degrade without strong management direction at the regional level. Fourth, 

 protection and recovery of these resources is critical to the maintenance of a strong economy. 



1. Regional ecosystem planning is the only rational, elTective way for federal managers 

 to meet their legal obligations to maintain and restore species and to protect and 

 restore water quality. 



Federal lands managers not only are fiiUy authorized to undertake the kinds of regional ecosystem 

 planning efforts represented by the Interior Columbia Basin and Sierra Nevada projects, but we 

 believe that they are obligated to do so. 



These projects were motivated largely by the realization that current management plans and 

 policies were both legally and biologically inadequate on a regionwide basis. In fact, these plans 

 were so deficient as to require amendment even before the regional planning projects could come 

 to fruition. In order to protect aquatic and old growth habitats from further degradation and 

 destruction, as well as to avoid further legal challenges, a series of interim policies were enacted in 

 the Interior Columbia Basin. These are commonly known as the eastside screens, (protecting 

 riparian and old-growth habitats during timber harvest), PACFISH (protecting riparian areas in 

 watersheds bearing anadromous fish from detrimental management activities on USPS and BLM 



