The national forest plans have already reduced-and will further reduce the Federal land base available for timber production in California. New land allocations and changing priorities in management direction will cause sharp reductions in the allowable sale quantity for our region. Additional requirements for endangered and sensitive species which have not yet been fully analyzed in the plans will require further reductions.

But the process does not provide any means to mitigate the impacts of such decisions on dependent communities, or provide an orderly mechanism for implementation of the changes in direction as they occur, nor does it require-and this is a key point, we feel reanalyzing land allocations or management prescriptions to attempt to mitigate the effects of these additional requirements. We can't continue to be victims of this subtractive overlay of one thing after another without analyzing the resource capabilities as a whole and determining whether or not there is significant overlap in the prescriptions that would afford some of the mitigation called for in the new requirements.

We need a well-defined process by which the Forest Service could incorporate changes in law into forest plans. Section 103 of H.R. 5094 would ensure that management changes, including protection measures for the owl, would be addressed in a plan amendment or revision, and that the environmental analysis for the amendment or revision consider other changes in land use or management prescriptions in order to meet as closely as possible plan goals and outputs.

Project appeals effectively-but we feel inappropriately-prevent implementation of forest plan decision. Section 201 and title III of H.R. 5095 are necessary to ensure an orderly and cost-effective process for the handling of appeals and litigation. Currently, the appeal and litigation process is so lengthy that it may be years before a final decision is made and approved. In the case of the decision to salvage timber, by the time the appeals are resolved, the timber has simply rotted away. And then when the appeal is ultimately upheld under appeal, the decision is moot and cannot be implemented.

The current forest planning process inadequately addresses the effects of planning decisions on dependent communities. Section 101 of H.R. 5094 would require the Forest Service to examine the impacts of forest plan alternatives on dependent communities and to consider the impacts in the selection of a preferred alternative. I might say that having been born and raised in one of those communities and living in one now, some of these phrases that we hear about retraining workers who have lived there all their lives, the kind of glossing over we see in some of the other bills of that substantive problem-I don't see a solution yet proposed that can mitigate the economic impacts in those communities.

Thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tomascheski appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. OLIN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JUDY ERICKSON, ALLIANCE COORDINATOR, LAKE STATES FORESTRY ALLIANCE

Ms. ERICKSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Judy Erickson and I serve as the alliance coordinator for the Lake States Forestry Alliance. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.

The alliance is a three-State organization established by the Governors of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in 1987 to bring together people with differing values relating to the management of the region's forests. Our programs, activities, and membership are designed to bring together all forest interests-industry, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, private landowners, and conservationists-to ensure that forest resources will be available for present and future generations.

The forests in the Lake States are young and are still recovering from the heavy cutting and the fires which occurred during the late 1800's and the early 1900's. Yet today, our forests are valued and used for many purposes, including recreation, fish and wildlife management, watershed protection, and the production of solid wood, pulp, and paper products. The national forest plans developed under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 are required to address all of these resource uses in an integrated manner. In the Lake States, the forest plans for our seven national forest planning units were completed in 1986. All were appealed. In 1988, over one-half of the 39 forest plan appeals were still pending. Today, in the fifth year of the 10-year planning period, all but one of the original appeals has been resolved. Yet the Forest Service is still having a great deal of difficulty implementing its plans.

The Lake States Forestry Alliance has consistently called for Congress and the Forest Service to fully fund and implement our national forest plans. These plans are the result of many years of work by the Forest Service, other Government agencies-including our State departments of natural resources-and the public. The final result represents "a covenant with the public to produce a set of goals and outputs from the national forests", as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture George Dunlop stated in 1988.

Section 306 of H.R. 5094 would add to NFMA a requirement that annual budget requests to Congress shall include a statement identifying the amount of funding necessary to implement 100 percent of the annual outputs called for in each plan. This is a much needed amendment. While funding for Forest Service recreation and wildlife management programs has increased greatly since the forest plans took effect, many programs continue to be incompletely funded, precluding full accomplishment of forest plan goals. Currently, the shortfall is difficult to determine, especially on a forest by forest basis. By identifying the full funding needed for each forest, the agency and Congress will know more clearly when opportunities may be foregone under a specific budget level.

While this provision is most helpful, the subcommittee should consider taking two additional steps to better address the issue of funding. Because many national forests do not receive the full amount of funding they require each year, the Forest Service should be required to identify, in the forest plans, how funds will

gress and the public would know what opportunities will have to be eliminated.

In addition, funding for forest inventory and research has been continually underfunded in the Lake States, yet resource analysis research provides important information needed to make informed decisions. It would be most helpful if the Forest Service were required to identify the level of research funding needed to support the forest planning process for each forest or for the region.

Section 106 of H.R. 5094 would also provide greater assurance that plans could be implemented. This section adds to NFMA a requirement that the Secretary of Agriculture certify in writing that each decision for implementing an action does not preclude achieving plan outputs. In other words, the action taken is wholly consistent with the decision made in the plan.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Lake States Forestry Alliance finds that H.R. 5094 would provide needed improvements to the National Forest Management Act to better ensure that forest plans may be implemented.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Erickson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. VOLKMER [resuming chair]. Thank you very much, Judy.
Mr. Riley, welcome to the committee again.

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. RILEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Jim Riley. In the past I've been a frequent witness before this committee and others of Congress discussing the problems associated with implementation of the national forest plans. I'm most pleased to be here today to begin the process of seeking a solution to those problems rather than what seems to be a long series of oversight as to what the problems actually are.

I'm also pleased to join my colleagues from across the country in strong support of H.R. 5094, which we believe is a very sound starting point for addressing some of the substantial problems which exist.

In my previous testimony I've noted for this committee that the forest plans are largely complete throughout the regions that the Intermountain Forest Industry Association represents. Those plans in almost all cases included a reduction in the Timber Sale Program from those forests. Those reductions were the result partly of the multiple use objectives of the National Forest Management Act, but more often a result of the climate of the early 1980's timber recession during which those plans were developed.

With these plans now in place, it is absolutely essential to us and the interests that we represent that the allowable sale quantities in those plans actually be consummated along with the other programs that those plans embrace. I have observed previously and I'm here to tell you again that the Forest Service's record in bringing about implementation of their forest plans has been dismal at

H.R. 5094, in our view, will do much to bring about the completion of the national forest planning process and the implementation of those plans initiated by Congress in 1976. Some of the highlights of this act include section 101 which establishes for the first time ever a requirement for the Forest Service to maintain, to the maximum extent feasible, the stability of communities which are economically dependent upon a given unit of the national forest. Many of the communities that we represent throughout Idaho and Montana depend entirely on the production of timber from those forests as their sole source of economic support.

In addition, there are several provisions of H.R. 5094 which assure that the allowable sale quantities in the plans will be met and that it will not be unjustifiably or arbitrarily reduced during the implementation process or subsequent amendments or revisions to those plans.

Those provisions of the bill are equally important as are sections 106 and 107 which will require that the agency certify that individual decisions on implementing the actions of the plan, during the course of the planning cycle will not-individually or in sequence preclude the Forest Service from actually meeting the public policy objectives set by the plans themselves.

Finally, in this area of consideration, I direct your attention to section 308 which will require the Forest Service to submit annual budget requirements which include appendices outlining full-financing requirements for the plans. Our association has long been in support of full financing of all elements of the forest plans and have continually been frustrated as we have dealt with Congress and the appropriations process of the lack of a clear linkage between the budget submissions by the agency and what their plans call for.

My testimony also includes a long section on the importance of the national forests to meeting the Nation's wood supply. That's a topic that this committee is fully aware of. I won't dwell on that anymore, but I will just mention that in the intense debates that occur in local situations, the importance of the national forest to satisfying the Nation's timber needs is often overlooked. This provision of H.R. 5094 is also of extreme importance.

Probably my biggest criticism in the past of the national forest planning process has been the susceptibility of that process to endless appeals and litigation which has served only to obstruct the implementation of the policy decisions arrived at by the Forest Service during the planning process. H.R. 5094 will do much to bring a resolution to that problem. There are provisions included throughout title III of the bill which provide an opportunity to finally bring closure through the national forest planning process to the decisionmaking embraced therein. Section 306 directs the Forest Service to develop regulations specifying how implementation actions will be tiered to the forest plan itself, the NEPA requirements that will be required in implementing plans, and how those tier to the NEPA documents that were produced to cover the plans. That's been absent over the 5 years of implementation that we've experienced and is extremely important.

Section 304 of the act will establish alternative procedures which

tiously. This is also important. I would stress in mentioning both of these during the course of title III, we do not read what others have found to be a problem in the act, where it would preclude legitimate challenges to be brought against the plans or those decisions.

At the same time, the bill does provide an extremely important element where it requires people who are going to bring administrative or judicial challenges against the forest plans to have previously participated in the decisionmaking process and to have exhausted their administrative remedies before seeking court redress of their considerations. This is most important.

In closing, I would mention that the Intermountain Forest Industry Association strongly opposes H.R. 4492, which is the Ancient Forest Protection of 1990, and H.R. 5295, the Ancient Forest Act of 1990. We do not have spotted owls in our part of the world, but we join our colleagues that have problems with that for the reasons outlined in my statement. And we also support H.R. 4909, the Community Stability Act of 1990 for the reasons outlined therein.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify and will be happy to answer questions that might arise.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley.

Our next witness will be Ms. Jill Mackie. Jill, you may proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JILL MACKIE, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
REPRESENTATIVE, PACIFIC LUMBER & SHIPPING CO.

Ms. MACKIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jill Mackie of Pacific Lumber & Shipping Co. in Washington State. Our headquarters are in Seattle, but our economic impact is in eastern Lewis County, a rural area of Washington that's just south of Mount Rainier National Park and just north of Mount Saint Helens. Our mills are heavily dependent on timber from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Our company is a small family owned firm which operates three mills in towns of eastern Lewis County: Morton, Randle, and Packwood. The latest official population estimate for Morton is 1,170. That sounds very small, but it's the largest of the three towns.

Through the years, Pacific Lumber and Shipping has maintained a commitment to steady employment. We have approximately 450 employees in eastern Lewis County. Our mills have operated at 100 percent all through the recession of the early 1980's and on into today's crisis of uncertainty. That's no shutdowns and no layoffs. Our mills are totally up to date technologically, thanks to heavy investment. We contract out additional work to about 300 other people, mostly roadbuilders and loggers. Between the people we employ and the goods and services we purchase, the entire economic well-being of eastern Lewis County relies on Pacific Lumber & Shipping. There really isn't anything else, and we haven't failed these people.

But the process of national forest management is beginning to