SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
62242 l
1999
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON: HERGER-FEINSTEIN QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
AUGUST 30, 1999, WASHINGTON D.C.
Serial No. 106–61
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ADAM SMITH, Washington
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
RON KIND, Wisconsin
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director
ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff
JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held August 30, 1999
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Herger, Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Statements of witnesses:
Jackson, Mike, Quincy Library Group Steering Committee, Quincy, California
Prepared statement of
O'Sullivan, Dick, California Cattlemen's Association Public Lands Committee
Prepared statement of
Powell, Brad, Acting Regional Forester, Region 5, U.S. Forest Service, Vallejo, California
Roudebush, Fran, Plumas County Supervisor, District 1, Quincy, California
Prepared statement of
Stewart, Frank, Counties QLG Forester, Chico, California
Prepared statement of
Stewart, William, Chief, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento
Prepared statement of
Spear, Mike, Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California
Prepared statement of
Terhune, George, Quincy Library Group Steering Committee, Quincy, California, accompanied by Linda Blum, Quincy Library Group, and Tom Nelson, Quincy Library Group, California
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Communications received:
The Record of Decision, text of
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON: HERGER-FEINSTEIN QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT
MONDAY, august 30, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Redding, California
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in Redding City Council Chambers, 1313 California Street, Redding, California, Hon. Helen Chenoweth [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Member present: Representative Chenoweth
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting here today to hear testimony on the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. Mr. Herger and I both want to thank you very much for making the time to come here today, and I am deeply grateful to all of you for participating in a historic event.
It is ironic that as I stepped out of my hotel today I smelled smoke of some of the 150 reported forest fires burning in Northern California. We also have new forest fires burning in Southern California. All we hear about is the hurricane on the national news.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is ironic because the very plan that we agreed on was designed to deal more effectively with the problem of forest fires, yet here we are, seven years later, and we are just beginning to implement the plan. I do not want to cast blame for this sad fact, and both Congressman Herger and I want to discuss the future with you. We want to discuss how to avoid the mistakes of the past and get on with conducting the pilot project that you struggle to promote for the forests, the wildlife, the people, who live throughout Northern California.
We want to discuss where things stand with implementation of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. We also want to discuss the recently issued record of decision as directed by that Act and your plans to work together to get this project started.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
[The Record of Decision follows]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Before we begin, though, congratulations are in order. We are now at a place and time, after seven long years for the Quincy Library Group, where the forest plan developed by diverse members and personalities of a rural California community can be legally implemented by your Federal Forest Service.
You have overcome substantial hurdles, and you put your heads together and came up with a plan that worked for everyone in your community. It worked for the ecologic integrity of the forest and the species that rely on the forests, including the human species.
You overcame administrative hurdles and legislative hurdles, tremendous hurdles. Your bill passed the House three times—once 329 to 1 and once unanimously. It passed the Senate once. It was signed by the President. And I think this was the first major forest management bill signed by this President.
Your forest plan was scrutinized in a nearly 500-page environmental impact statement and a 16-page record of decision. Many people inside and outside of the Forest Service did not want the QLG plan to see the light of day, but many more did want to give it a chance. And so we are here today.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is because it is a plan that seeks to use man's knowledge and wherewithal to facilitate the ecological balance of forests that belong to everyone. It's a plan that acknowledges man's desire to provide an economic balance in the rural timber communities in this part of Northern California.
It is a plan that recognizes that human beings are good, and that we are not about destroying the forests that God has given us. It also acknowledges that people are part of nature, and that some parts of nature should also be left alone.
So I think that congratulations are in order. I want to, first, congratulate my colleague Wally Herger. This Congressman has worked tirelessly on your behalf, both inside Washington, DC and outside. His energy is unbounded, and I am so very impressed. He serves as an inspiration to me.
I want to also congratulate George Terhune, Linda Blum. I want to congratulate Tom Nelson, and I want to congratulate Frank Stewart. Congratulations Michael Jackson, and congratulations Bill Coats, and one of my very favorite people, Rose Comstock. Congratulations to the QLG members. Congratulations Brad Powell, Kathryn Silverman, Mark Madrid, Steven Eubanks, and Dave Peters of the Forest Service. And congratulations to Mike Spear of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
I also want to thank my colleague in the Senate, my senior Senator, Larry Craig, for the part that he has played in this. And I want to thank California senior Senator Dianne Feinstein. You all made this plan and have brought it here today, ready for implementation.
Now, I realize that it is a rare occasion that I congratulate people in the Forest Service and in the Fish and Wildlife Service on the same day. But you all deserve a piece of the credit for belonging and bringing this community-based plan to a point where it can now be implemented as a pilot project. It offers hope to those of us who care deeply about balance in our national forests.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And while some of this hearing will focus on the specifics of the EIS and the record of decision, I very much look forward to hearing about the future, hearing about how you all plan to work together to make this project really finally happen and before this new century begins. We want to see work on the ground.
After seven years of work, the Plumas, the Lassen, and the Tahoe forests, and the species that depend on them, including—and in my opinion, very, very importantly—the human species, deserve nothing less than implementation this year.
Thank you all for coming, and now I turn to my colleague, Congressman Herger, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Herger and I thank you for making the time to come here today. We want to discuss where things stand with the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. We also want to discuss the recently issued Record of Decision as directed by that Act, and your plans to work together to get this project started.
Before we begin, though, congratulations are in order. We are now at a place and time, after seven long years for the Quincy Library Group, where the forest plan developed by diverse members and personalities of a rural California community CAN BE LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED BY YOUR FEDERAL FOREST SERVICE!
You have overcome substantial hurdles. You put your heads together and came up with a plan that worked for everyone in your community. It worked for the ecologic integrity of the forest and the species that rely on the forest—including human beings.
You overcame administrative hurdles and legislative hurdles. Your bill passed the House three times—once 429-1 and once unanimously. It passed the Senate once. It was signed by the President. I think this was the first major forest management bill signed by this President.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Your forest plan was scrutinized in a nearly 500 page Environmental Impact Statement and a 16 page Record of decision. Many people inside and outside of the Forest Service did not want the QLG plan to see the light of day, but many more did want to give it a chance.
That is because it is a plan that seeks to use man's knowledge and wherewithal to facilitate the ecological balance of forests that belong to everyone. It is a plan that acknowledges man's desire to provide an economic balance in the rural timber communities in this part of Northern California.
It is a plan that recognizes that human beings are good, that we are not about destroying the forests that God has given us. It also acknowledges that people are part of nature, but that some parts of nature should be left alone.
So I think that congratulations are in order. Congratulations Linda Blum. Congratulations George Terhune. Congratulations Tom Nelson. Congratulations Frank Stewart. Congratulations Mike Jackson. Congratulations Bill Coats. Congratulations Rose Comstock. Congratulations QLG members. Congratulations Brad Powell, Kathryn Silverman, Mark Madrid, Steven Eubanks and Dave Peters of the Forest Service. Congratulations Mike Spear of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Congratulations Wally Herger and Congratulations Senator Larry Craig and Senator Diane Feinstein. You all made this plan and have brought it here today—ready for implementation.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, thank you for arranging this hearing today on the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. This legislation is a breakthrough for those of us interested in finding bipartisan and cooperative solutions to forest management issues. It has received the full support and backing of the forest products industry, local environmentalists, labor, local officials, and concerned citizens.
I'd like to take a moment to applaud Senator Dianne Feinstein for taking on the challenge to support this legislation on behalf of the people of Quincy and of California. I'd also like to thank her for standing behind her principles to support the Quincy Library Group. Her assistance is reflective of the spirit of coming together that epitomizes the QLG experience.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also like to thank the Forest Service for their hard work in preparing this environmental impact statement, both the leadership at the regional level and the staff who worked diligently on the EIS. I commend them for supporting and selecting Alternative 2 in the face of opposition from certain extreme environmental organizations opposed to local consensus and collaboration. This is the correct decision and is consistent with the intent of Congress in overwhelmingly passing the Act.
I'd also like to express my deep appreciation to the Quincy Library Group. Focused on the realization that something had to be done to remove the gridlock that has prevented responsible forest management for the last 15 years, the members of the QLG set aside their differences and worked together to develop local, consensus-driven solutions. Through their hard work and dedication to this project, they have demonstrated an immeasurable commitment to improving the health and well-being of the communities and forests in which they live and work.
The selection of Alternative 2 gets us one step closer to actual implementation of this historic pilot project which is truly a win-win for our forests and our communities. This project is good for people, it is good for the environment, and it is good for the forests.
Currently, 39 million acres of our forests—western forests—are at a frighteningly high risk of destruction from catastrophic fire. A recently released Government Accounting Office report called western national forests a ''tinderbox.'' In some areas, our national forests are two and three times denser than they were back in 1928. Thick undergrowth, combined with increasingly taller layers of intermediate trees, has turned western forests into deadly fire time bombs.
Now, when a fire starts, it quickly climbs up the dense tree growth like a ladder until it tops out at the uppermost or crown level of the forest and races out of control as a catastrophic fire. Because of their high speed and intense heat, crown fires are nothing like the normally healthy fires of the past, but have the capability of leaving an almost sterile environment in their wake with almost no vegetation, wildlife, or habitat left behind.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This past week over 150 separate fire incidents, caused by more than 3,000 lightning strikes, have raged throughout my Northern California district, placing life and property at risk. This tragedy shows the constant and imminent threat of wildfire devastation facing our citizens and communities every day. It emphasizes what the QLG has stressed all along—that we absolutely must address this wildfire risk immediately.
And it emphasizes the need to implement a plan such as that proposed by the Quincy Library Group on forests throughout the west. Experts believe that the window of opportunity for taking effective management action is only about 10 to 25 years before catastrophic wildfires become widespread.
The Quincy Library Group proposal uses the best science available to address this impending wildfire threat, while providing economic benefits to our struggling rural communities. It protects the Federal forest lands. It protects owls and other animals. It has the best chance of producing a fire-resistant forest. It is the most balanced alternative for community stability and jobs.
Although certain extreme organizations have misled the public during the course of this debate, portraying the QLG project as a logging bill and claiming that it would destroy owl habitat, in reality, the project has always been about addressing the extreme fire danger facing our rural communities and preserving our forest ecosystems for future generations.
The possibility that owl habitat could be lost entirely because of a devastating wildfire is too often overlooked. If we do not combat this risk now, we might not have anything left to save.
We have a historic opportunity before us to prove, through tangible, on-the-ground results, that economic stability and forest health are not mutually exclusive. This decision is an important first step. However, we must now put this EIS behind us and direct our energies toward proper implementation of the pilot project. The Forest Service must continue to collaborate with the QLG to ensure that on-the-ground activities are conducted as Congress and the QLG intended.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We must work to ensure that the activities are carried out on the scale and at the pace and will provide the full economic and ecological benefits envisioned. We must work to ensure that measures are put into place on the ground to effectively eliminate any potential negative effects on livestock grazing. The Forest Service must continue to place its good faith support behind the QLG proposal.
I believe the QLG project will provide the model for effective management of our western forests. This plan represents an entirely new approach to managing our national forests. It is history in the making. It is also an opportunity to reinforce that local coalitions, not Washington bureaucracies, are best at deciding what will work for their communities.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN COGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Madam Chairman, thank you for arranging this hearing today on the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. This legislation is a breakthrough for those of us interested in finding bipartisan and cooperative solutions to forest management issues. It has received the full support and backing of the forest products industry, local environmentalists, labor, local officials and concerned citizens.
I would like to take a moment to applaud Senator Dianne Feinstein for taking on the challenge to support this legislation on behalf of the people of Quincy. I would also like to thank her for standing behind her principles to support the Quincy Library Group. Her assistance is reflective of the spirit of coming together that epitomizes the QLG experience.
I would also like to thank the Forest Service for their hard work in preparing this Environmental Impact Statement—both the leadership at the Regional level and the staff who worked diligently on the EIS. I commend them for supporting and selecting Alternative 2 in the face of opposition from certain extreme environmental organizations opposed to local consensus and collaboration. This is the correct decision and is consistent with the intent of Congress in overwhelmingly passing the Act.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also like to express my deep appreciation to the Quincy Library Group. Focused on the realization that something had to be done to remove the gridlock that has prevented responsible forest management for the last 15 years, the members of the QLG set aside their differences and worked together to develop local, consensus-driven solutions. Through their hard work and dedication to this project, they have demonstrated an immeasurable commitment to improving the health and well-being of the communities and forests in which they live and work.
The selection of Alternative 2 gets us one step closer to actual implementation of this historic pilot project which is truly a win-win for our forests and our communities. This project is good for people, it is good for the environment, and it is good for the forests.
Currently, 39 million acres of our western forests are at a frighteningly high risk of destruction from catastrophic fire. A recently released Government Accounting Office report called western National Forests a ''tinderbox.'' In some areas, our National Forests are 2 to 3 times denser than they were in 1928. Thick undergrowth, combined with increasingly taller layers of intermediate trees, has turned western forests into deadly fire time bombs. Now, when a fire starts, it quickly climbs up the dense tree growth like a ladder until it tops out at the uppermost, or ''crown,'' level of the forest and races out of control as a catastrophic fire. Because of their high speed and intense heat, ''crown fires'' are nothing like the normally healthy fires of the past, but have the capability of leaving an almost sterile environment in their wake with almost no vegetation, wildlife, or habitat left behind.
This past week, over 100 separate fire incidents, caused by more than 3,000 lightening strikes, have raged throughout my Northern California District, placing life and property at great risk. This tragedy shows the constant and imminent threat of wildfire devastation facing our citizens and communities every day. It emphasizes what the QLG has stressed all along—that we absolutely must address this wildfire risk immediately. And it emphasizes the need to implement a plan such as that proposed by the Quincy Library Group on forests throughout the west. Experts believe that the window of opportunity for taking effective management action is only about 10 to 25 years before catastrophic wildfires become widespread.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Quincy Library Group proposal uses the best science available to address this impending wildfire threat, while providing economic benefits to our struggling rural communities. It protects the Federal forest land. It protects owls and other animals. It has the best chance of producing a fire resistant forest. It is the most balanced alternative for community stability and jobs. Although certain extreme organizations have misled the public during the course of this debate, portraying the QLG project as a logging bill and claiming that it will destroy owl habitat, in reality, the project has always been about addressing the extreme fire danger facing our rural communities and preserving our forest ecosystems for future generations. The possibility that owl habitat could be lost entirely because of a devastating wildfire is too often overlooked. If we do not combat this risk now, we might not have anything left to save.
We have a historic opportunity before us to prove through tangible, on-the-ground results that economic stability and forest health are NOT mutually exclusive. This Decision is an important first step. However, we must now put this EIS behind us and direct our energies toward proper implementation of the pilot project. The Forest Service must continue to collaborate with the QLG to ensure that on-the-ground activities are conducted as Congress and the QLG intended. We must work to ensure that the activities are carried out on the scale and at the pace that will provide the full economic and ecological benefits envisioned. We must work to ensure that measures are put into place on the ground to effectively eliminate any potential negative effects on livestock grazing. The Forest Service must continue to place its good-faith support behind the QLG proposal.
I believe the QLG project will provide THE model for effective management of our western forests. This plan represents an entirely new approach to managing our National Forests. It is history in the making. It is also an opportunity to reinforce that local coalitions, not Washington bureaucracies, are best at deciding what will work for their communities.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger.
It is my privilege to be able to introduce our first panel now. Mr. Mike Jackson will be joining us first from the Quincy Library Group Steering Committee, Quincy, California; Mr. George Terhune, Quincy Library Group Steering Committee, also from Quincy, California; accompanied by Linda Blum of the Quincy Library Group, and Mr. Ed Murphy of Sierra Pacific Industries.
As explained in our first hearing, it is the intention of the Chairman to place all witnesses under oath. This is a formality of the committee that is meant to assure open and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony given by the witnesses.
I believe that all of the witnesses were informed of this before appearing here today, and that you all have been provided a copy of the committee rules.
Now, if you will just please stand and raise your right arm to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Mike Jackson for testimony.
STATEMENT OF MIKE JACKSON, QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth. The words that you have spoken, the words that Congressman Herger have spoken, basically make all of the time worthwhile. And I really want to thank you for the steadfastness of your support and personal instructions that you have given each and every one of our members.
It is a great honor to return to testify before this Subcommittee of Congress. The opportunity to participate in the noble experiment that is the subject of this hearing has been one of my most fulfilling personal experiences. While not all of the moments of the last seven years have been pain-free, basically I believe that democracy and law can work, and that the Quincy Library Group experience proves that fact.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since George Terhune is also testifying, and since Linda and Ed are here to answer questions, they will cover the substantive parts of the Quincy program for you. But I feel free to limit my comments to the seven-year process of the program.
When we first set down to attempt to find common ground, we actually thought the source of the problems confronting our communities was local. We were wrong. While there were, and are, values and beliefs in the community that are different, those legitimate differences are not the source of the almost violent differences between the people of the west.
The substantive differences are more about means than ends, and the problems dividing us can be solved. The lack of scientific certainty about public land ecosystems will always leave room for different views about proper management, but there is no excuse for the present management paralysis.
The land has needs, the people who live in it have needs, and the great urban communities of the west have needs. How can they all be reconciled?
For the Quincy program, the Congress and the Forest Service have established a balance between these needs and the health of the forest. I still believe that that balance is approximately correct and feel validated by the Forest Service decision to proceed. I look forward to the monitoring and analysis that will finally tell us who was right and who was wrong about this particular solution to our problems in the Northern Sierra Nevada.
But today, because I think it will be instructive, I would like to talk about a tale of two cities—one small and rural, one large and urban. Quincy and San Francisco have a relationship much like rural and urban communities in the rest of the west. San Francisco is very liberal; Quincy is mostly conservative. San Francisco is very rich; Quincy is quite poor. San Francisco is politically powerful; Quincy is almost unknown in California and Washington, DC.
Most of San Francisco's property is private; most of the area around Quincy is national forest. Over the last 150 years, most of the damage in the local national forests have been done by San Francisco corporations and citizens. The mining and lumber industries were centered in San Francisco, and most of the profit from mining, logging, and agriculture has traditionally gone to San Francisco, in much the same way resources overseas have gone to the colonial power, not to the local people.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A quick comparison shows the power imbalance. San Francisco gets its water from Yosemite National Park, from the flooded Hetch Hetchy Valley. Quincy pumps local groundwater. San Francisco gets its power from Yosemite National Park as well, and a San Francisco corporation—PG&E—has dammed and destroyed all of the rivers of the Sierra Nevada for urban shareholder profit. Quincy gets part of its power from PG&E and part from a rural electric cooperative.
San Francisco controls another national park, the Presidio, with absolute local control. A private corporation rents commercial space to, among others, the Wilderness Society and the George Lucas Corporation. No one else in America gets any say in the management of this national park, and there is no opportunity for input since this operation was exempted from NEPA. Quincy has plowed ahead within all applicable laws and with thorough NEPA review.
So why are there two sets of rules about public land? Why is San Francisco allowed to destroy major parts of two national parks with not a word from the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club? But Quincy is accused of demanding local control of the nearby forests.
For the last seven years, I have been trying to understand what seems to be a double standard. Now that our program is through the hurdles placed in front of it by the San Francisco-based Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, I am still not completely sure why there is two sets of rules. All people are capable of hypocrisy, and I have certainly been guilty of it myself at times. But why can't the San Franciscans see it in themselves?
I think this is because this urban/rural debate is not about the environment. It's about power. The colonial attitude of the urban environmental movement is not new to San Franciscans, and the disrespect that the elitist movement types have for rural people would exist no matter what people in Quincy do now or in the future. There will never be a sharing of responsibility and authority as long as the movement is more important than either the local people or the environment.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The experience of the Quincy Library Group is different for every member. For me, the experience has taught me lifetime lessons. Some of them have been bitter, indeed, but most have touched my heart and thrilled my mind. Democracy works. The constitutional right to peaceably assembly with anyone of our choice to petition our government to redress our grievances is not just old dead words. These guarantees live today, and on behalf of my community I wish to thank the many great Americans who have gone out of their way to help us.
First, I want to thank President Clinton for motivating us at the Northwest Forest Summit in Portland in 1993 when he told all of us to get out of the courtroom and work out these problems. Next, I want to thank Congressman Herger and Senator Feinstein, both of whom have been brave and steadfast in our support under intense pressure from their own natural constituencies. I want to thank Congressmen Don Young and Sherwood Boehlert and Senators Craig, Lott, Murkowski, Gorton, Daschle, Reid, and Bumpers for their help and inspiration.
I also want to thank hundreds of government employees in the Agriculture, Interior, and Energy Departments with whom I have worked.
I believe that America enters the 21st century a great and proud nation, with capable and compassionate leadership in both parties and in government service. Lastly, I want to thank the members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee for your time and consideration.
I have only one further request for your consideration. When the next group of citizens comes forward, please give them the same time and consideration that you have given to us. You have proven to me that this is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth, for your service and for your willingness to consider our new ideas.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. JACKSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 429 WEST MAIN STREET, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA
It is a great honor to return to testify before this Committee of Congress. The opportunity to participate in the noble experiment that is the subject of this hearing has been one of my most fulfilling personal experiences. While not all the moments of the last seven years have been pain-free, basically I believe that democracy and law can work, and the Quincy Library Group experience proves that fact.
Since George Terhune is also testifying before the Subcommittee today, and will cover the substantive parts of the Quincy program for you, I feel free to limit my comments to the seven year process of the program. When we first sat down to attempt to find common ground, we actually thought the source of the problems confronting our communities was local. We were wrong. While there were, and are, values and beliefs that are different, those legitimate
differences are not the source of the almost violent differences between the people of the West. The substantive differences are more about means than ends, and the problems dividing us can be solved. The lack of scientific certainty about public land ecosystems will always leave room for different views about proper management, but there is no excuse for the present management paralysis. The land has needs, the people who live in it have needs, and the great urban communities of the West have needs. How can they all be reconciled?
For the Quincy program, the Congress and the Forest Service have established a balance between these needs and the health of the forest. I still believe that balance is approximately correct and feel validated by the Forest Service decision to proceed. I look forward to the monitoring and analysis that will finally tell us who was right and who was wrong about this particular solution to our problems in the Northern Sierra Nevada.
But today, because I think it will be instructive, I would like to talk about a tale of two cities, one small and rural, one large and urban. Quincy and San Francisco have a relationship much like rural and urban communities in the rest of the West. San Francisco is very liberal, Quincy is mostly conservative. San Francisco is very rich, Quincy is quite poor. San Francisco is politically powerful, Quincy is almost completely unknown in California and Washington. Most of San Francisco's property is private, most of the area around Quincy is national forest.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the last 150 years, most of the damage in the national forest has been done by San Francisco corporations and citizens. The mining and lumber industries were centered in San Francisco, and most of the profit from mining, logging and agriculture has traditionally gone to San Francisco in much the same way resources overseas have gone to the colonial power, not to the local people.
A quick comparison shows the power imbalance. San Francisco gets its water from Yosemite National Park, from the flooded Hetch Hetchy Valley. Quincy pumps local groundwater. San Francisco gets its power from Yosemite National Park as well, and a San Francisco corporation, PG&E, has dammed and destroyed all the rivers of the Sierra Nevada for urban shareholder profit. Quincy gets part of its power from PG&E and part from a rural electric cooperative. San Francisco controls another national park, the Presidio, with absolute local control. A private corporation rents commercial space to, among others, the Wilderness Society and the George Lucas corporation. No one else in America gets any say in the management of this national park and there is no opportunity for input since this operation was exempted from NEPA. Quincy has plowed ahead, within all applicable laws and with thorough NEPA review.
So why are there two sets of rules about public land? Why is San Francisco allowed to destroy major parts of two national parks with not a word from the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club, but Quincy is accused of ''demanding local control'' of the nearby forests? For the last seven years, I have been trying to understand what seems to be a double standard. Now that our program is through the hurdles placed in front of it by the San Francisco-based Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, I am still not completely sure. All people are capable of hypocrisy and I have certainly been guilty myself at times, but why can't the San Franciscans see it in themselves?
I think it is because this urban-rural debate is not about the environment, it is about power. The colonial attitude of the urban environmental movement is not new to San Franciscans, and the disrespect that the elitist ''movement'' types have for rural people would exist no matter what people in Quincy do now or in the future. There never will be a sharing of responsibility and authority as long as the ''movement'' is more important that either local people or the environment.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The experience of the Quincy Library Group is different for every member. For me, the experience has taught me lifetime lessons. Some of them have been bitter indeed. But most have touched my heart and thrilled my mind. Democracy works. The Constitutional right to peaceably assemble with anyone of our choice to petition our government to redress our grievances is not just old dead words. These guarantees live today, and on behalf of my community I wish to thank many great Americans who have gone out of their way to help us.
First, I want to thank President Clinton for motivating us at the Northwest Forest Summit in Portland in 1993 when he told all of us to get out of the courtroom and work out these problems. Next I want to thank Congressman Herger and Senator Feinstein, both of whom have been brave and steadfast in our support under intense pressure from their own natural constituencies. I want to thank Congressmen Don Young and Sherwood Boehlert and Senators Craig, Lott, Murkowski, Gorton, Daschle, Reid and Bumpers for their help and inspiration.
I also want to thank hundreds of government employees in the Agriculture, Interior and Energy Departments with whom I have worked.
I believe that America enters the 21st century a great and proud nation, with capable and compassionate leadership in both parties and in government service. Lastly I want to thank the members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee for your time and consideration. I have only one further request for your consideration. When the next group of citizens comes forward, please give them the same time and consideration that you have given to us. You have proven to me that this is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth, for your service and for your willingness to consider our new ideas.
BIOGRAPHIOCAL SKETCH MICHAEL B. JACKSON
Michael Jackson graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1972. He practices water and environmental law and has represented environmental groups and local government agencies in many state and Federal actions, including State Water Resources Control Board hearings on the Bay Delta and many California rivers. Mr. Jackson is currently Water Attorney for the Regional Council of Rural Counties, a coalition of 27 rural California counties. He is also Special Water Counsel for Plumas County.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Jackson is a co-founder of the Quincy Library Group, a community collaborative effort designed to balance environmental health and economic recovery in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra counties. He has been a lecturer and seminar participant for many American universities and for several private policy foundations on the subjects of natural resources, water, and the environment.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for that outstanding testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Terhune.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE TERHUNE, QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY LINDA BLUM, QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP, AND TOM NELSON, QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP, CALIFORNIA
Mr. TERHUNE. Chairman Chenoweth, Congressman Herger, I am George Terhune, a retired airline pilot, and co-chairman of the QLG Pilot Project Consultation Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to address your Committee on behalf of our committee.
At this point, QLG is most interested in two things—successful implementation of the pilot project and a reasonable outcome to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment EIS now being developed in the Sierra Nevada conservation framework.
Regarding the pilot project, we first want to express our profound gratitude and admiration to Congressman Herger and his staff, to Senator Feinstein and her staff, and to this Committee and its staff, for their continuous rock-solid support during the two and a half years it took to enact the legislation and obtain a Forest Service decision to implement it.
QLG supports the decision to adopt Alternative 2 and will work diligently to help assure that it is implemented correctly and in a cost-effective manner. However, we must point out that this was a good decision but reached by some questionable processes that do need to be corrected.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my written testimony there are several specifics. At this time, I just want to emphasize two problem areas that were changes made by the Forest Service at the last minute.
First, they decided to implement a mitigation instead of following the California spotted owl guidelines that are specified in the Act. This mitigation says that activities will ''completely avoid suitable California spotted owl habitat, including nesting habitat and foraging habitat.''
QLG does believe it would have been preferable to implement the guidelines as required by the Act, and that the substitute mitigation is very likely to introduce some problems because there are no rigorous definitions provided for ''suitable California spotted owl habitat or nesting habitat or foraging habitat.''
And the wording implies that additional habitat other than nesting and foraging habitat is included in the prohibition. At the very least, we believe that the proper definition should be supplied and that the mitigation should be changed to say that the projects will avoid just the nesting and foraging habitat, because we believe that was the intention and the ambiguous wording might cause problems.
The second change has to do with the limited operating periods—they are called LOPs—which are periods where activity is restricted in an area due to the presence of a rare animal or a bird at a sensitive time of its life cycle. Twelve species are on the list, and for 11 of them the LOP seems reasonable.
For example, for a sandhill crane it limits activity within half a mile of known nesting sites from April 1st through August 1st. However, for the 12th species on the list, the California red-legged frog, the LOP applies to ''all unsurveyed and occupied suitable habitat, starting on October 1st or with the first quarter-inch rain of the season and continuing until April 15th of the following year.''
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is potentially a very long shutdown period. It is over very large areas where these frogs are almost certain not to exist at all.
The concern about this—I called and talked to Dave Peters about it briefly, and apparently some survey of this nature is already done routinely for projects. The problem is that this was listed in the final EIS as an amended forest plan direction, which indicates that there is something beyond that intended by it, a more comprehensive requirement for the surveys than what we believe would be warranted.
We believe that this LOP should be changed, at least to be as site-specific as possible, and that it should be related to actual known locations of these frogs, not to all unsurveyed potential habitat.
I would also like to put in a few words here about the fires recently experienced and still going on. It is too early at this time to determine whether one fuel reduction strategy or another would have worked better in this situation.
What we do know is that at least for the Plumas and Lassen forests we were very lucky. In many places it was only the relatively calm winds that saved us from catastrophe. The most worrisome thing about the situation we actually faced was an almost immediate indication that Forest Service suppression capability was stretched pretty much to its limit. There was no capability apparent to be able to handle wind-driven fires if the wind had come up.
The decisive advantage of fuel breaks is that in a bad fire situation the effectiveness of suppression forces is greatly increased. Now, we don't know at this time how well they will work, until the fuel break network is actually in place. So our job now is to implement the pilot project and monitor it closely to find out how well this will work in a truly potential catastrophic situation.
Now, I have saved one subject, perhaps the most important one, for last. The pilot project cannot succeed unless it continues to be supported by earmarked funding to carry it out in full. On this subject, it is important to note that the final EIS shows that implementation of Alternative 2 will greatly improve the ratio of Federal revenues of Federal costs and hugely increase both direct and secondary economic activity in the QLG area. Frank Stewart will be addressing this subject in more detail later.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But when you add the Federal and local economic benefits to the reduction in fire hazard, the improvements in forest health, and the previously unavailable information that this pilot project will give us, we believe it's a win-win-win-win-win situation, and we, therefore, ask you to continue your strong support for the pilot project, and that you continue to monitor it closely, and that you recommend its continued funding for the entire five years.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Terhune follows:]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Terhune.
I want to thank both of the witnesses for your outstanding testimony—very informative, very good.
Now the Chair recognizes Congressman Herger for his questions.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Jackson, environmental groups have criticized your QLG plan and the QLG bill. They say it is bad for the environment. What is your reaction or response to this charge?
Mr. JACKSON. They are wrong. Basically, the environmental movement has been right many, many times in the past and has provided a great service for the people of the United States in acquainting us to the problems that we face. But they are not very good at solutions. And it is time to move past problem identification in the solution building.
In your district, as you know better than I, to 80 percent of the people want to take care of the environment, but only 20 to 25 percent of the people would let anybody label them an environmentalist. And that is the distinction—is the solutions are about including everybody in the United States. The movement is about dividing everybody in the United States.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so it is time for some of us in the movement to step up and say that it is time to learn from everyone, and it is time to share information with everyone, and it is time to get on with real solutions. And I do believe that this has been instructive for the environmental movement.
The normal demonizing that takes place when you disagree with the movement didn't work here, and it didn't work because the substance of the program was so good. And so I see this as very hopeful, and I believe that over time my environmental friends will be more interested in solutions than in simply advertising and propaganda.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you. I really believe what you have just stated is what literally makes this so historic in what we are doing. But I would like to follow this line of questioning just a little further, if I could, and would like to seek your reaction or response to the following allegations against the QLG. And we have read this in the media over and over again—a number of these—and again I would like your response if we could.
The first one is that the QLG plan doubles logging.
Mr. JACKSON. The answer to that, as you well know, Congressman Herger, is from what base do we determine that it doubles logging? When I began to work in the environmental movement, the logging on the forests involved here was about 460 million board feet a year. This will be somewhere between 200 and 285.
The logging done in this program is completely different than the logging done in the 1980s when we clear cut all trees as the appropriate method, according to the Forest Service. That is all that they gave the loggers was clear cutting all trees.
This particular program is designed to improve habitat and to improve fire risk. So basically, I would say that this program is slightly less than what it ought to be over the next 40 years. But the idea that it doubles logging, you would have to use the numbers from a level that is in everybody's mind far too little to come up with the idea that this program doubled something.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You can look at it either way. It is either 60 percent of what it used to be or more than the lowest level ever reached in history. But we don't think that the number is important. If we do the right thing on each acre of land, the number will take care of itself.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you. The next allegation: the QLG bill was passed as a rider.
[Laughter.]
Mr. JACKSON. As you know, Congressman, we had a healthy debate on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. We had a healthy debate in this Committee and in Congressman Young's full Committee. And George Miller, in both cases, did a magnificent job debating his position and his allies' position. And then we reached agreement between Congressman Young and Congressman Miller, and the vote was 429.
And we had 100 votes in the Senate. We won in the Senate Committee 11 to 0. And then my environmental friends began to play the games at which they are so capable, and we ended up with mysterious holes on our bill, and we sat in the Senate for almost a year. And if it had been brought up for a vote at any time within that year, we would have had at least 95 of the 100 Senate votes.
And because the Democrats, a few Democrats, played a very fine procedural game, we did, too. And we picked a bill that it was clear would have to be passed. And we went to the leadership in both parties, and the leadership in both parties—every single leader had us on their list in both parties.
And I would like at this point to tell you that we would not have had that kind of skill to enable us to get around the procedural hurdles, if we were not led by a man who probably did more than any single human being to help us through the thicket in Washington. And he sits right there beside the two of you Congresspeople today, Duane Gibson, and I want to thank him for what he did to help us know how to handle Washington procedure.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Applause.]
Mr. HERGER. For those of you who aren't aware of whether—and understand what Mr. Michael Jackson is referring to, a great staff person, Duane Gibson, who has worked so well. All of us know we are only as good as the people we have working with us, and we certainly have outstanding staff in Duane.
I want to thank you, and thank you for acknowledging that.
Also, just to mention that every single Democrat in the House of Representatives, including George Miller, voted for this when it was before the House.
Mr. JACKSON. I would also like to point out that because we are a stickler for procedure that one of the first people in the United States Senate to vote for our bill was Senator Barbara Boxer.
Mr. HERGER. The next allegation: the QLG bill is a hidden subsidy for logging corporations.
Mr. JACKSON. One of the things that has disturbed me in the years I have been an environmentalist is this question of corporations as somehow a bad word, and subsidy as somehow wrong when it is applied to a corporation. I have heard regularly about Sierra Pacific and Sierra Pacific's role in the Library Group, and they have been wonderful in the Library Group, along with the other companies—Collins Pine, Big Valley Lumber, Birney Forest Product. They have all worked quite well with the rest of us, and they have been very, very fair.
One of the problems that I have is that I was raised a liberal, and so I am kind of a watermelon. I am a little green on the outside and kind of pink on the inside. And I think some of my friends have lost the social argument, and this is one of the last places where we still talk a lot about capitalists and monopolists and all of those non-environmental words.
And so I try to keep my politics and my environmental views separate, and I wish my friends in the environmental movement would do that. This is not a subsidy. This will pay for itself. It will pay for itself in terms of market prices, and it will pay for itself in terms of improvement in the ecology.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, basically, I am a little tired of hearing about monopoly practices in the forest when I have to go to computers that are run by Bill Gates. And if we are all going to worry about monopolies in this country, let us start with Windows——
[Laughter.]
——[continuing] because they are much more effective and much more powerful than anybody in the timber industry.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you. And then, if you could respond to this quote. We have read this in virtually all of the national newspapers and locally. ''Congress and local counties seem to feel the best way to subsidize industry is to cut down public forests. I think it is just indicative of the fact that the only way the United States Forest Service can get increases in logging approved is circumventing real democracy.''
Mr. JACKSON. Well, I don't know how you circumvent real democracy. When you develop something at a local level, you go through the House of Representatives, you go through the United States Senate, and you have the President sign the bill. And then you go through the National Environmental Policy Act, and you have a good strong view taken of the viability standard and the potential of an endangered species.
When you do all of that, it is really hard to think that you should give any credence whatsoever to the idea that we circumvented democracy. Congress is the democracy. The House of Representatives is the people's house.
And consequently, the idea that somehow it is more democratic for a group of us who have legal skills to intervene in every activity of the Congress, every activity of the agencies with litigation, and that that somehow is democratic, and the process we took step by step through the bill process is anti-democratic, seems to me to make one wonder whether the urban elite universities are still as good as they used to be.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you. And finally, in this line of questioning, if you could tell us about CASPO, the California spotted owl, requirements as they relate to QLG EIS, and when do they apply?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JACKSON. The California spotted owl rules basically take what we know in terms of the science and apply it in as efficient a way as you can, given the uncertainty. They require that you not log any tree bigger than 30 inches dbh until it is clear what suitable habitat for the spotted owl and other old growth species really is.
We believe that that is a good rule because we know we need big trees, we know we need big down material in the forests, but we know very little else for sure. So the CASPO rules are a reasonable approach given the uncertainty, and we intend to obey them.
In the last days of the Library Group program, it became clear that there may be some new science about suitability of habitat. We do not want to avoid new science, but we want to make sure that the new science is an improvement on the old science before it gets applied to us. So we will monitor the new science in the framework document which is being prepared.
When I started—after I had moved from Redding in 1977 to Quincy, and began to look at the question of habitat, it became clear to me in 1977 that we didn't know exactly what suitable owl habitat was. As I sit here in 1999, having read every document and gone to almost every meeting, I still don't know what suitable habitat is.
So I think that the Library Group approach is exactly the right approach to take, given the uncertainty. It is conservative and cautious, but it is activity and not the zero cut that some of the folks in the environmental movement want for policy reasons.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I yield back to you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger.
I want to address this question to Ms. Blum. I am going to read to you from Public Law 105-277, which is the compliance section for the spotted owl. I want to read this into the record.
''All resource management activities required by subsection D shall be implemented to the extent consistent with applicable Federal law and the standards and guidelines for the conservation of the California spotted owl as set forth in the California spotted owl Sierra interim guidelines, or the subsequently issued guidelines, whichever are in effect.''
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information follows:]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, this is the law relative to owl guidelines. Now, the Forest Service chose not to enter the owl habitat at all, instead of following the law. Now, I want to know, Ms. Blum, what your thoughts are for the record on that decision.
Ms. BLUM. I think the rules of the game got changed on us, and I think the rules are being changed, as Mike Jackson referred to, on the basis of some ''new science'' that hasn't been written up and published yet. It hasn't been subjected to scientific rigor and the normal kinds of debate, replication, and testing that is the hallmark of the scientific method.
Instead what we had was—inexplicably to us, I might add—literally after the draft EIS for the QLG project was released for public review, we heard about closed meetings among agency scientists at which they held discussions, and other agency scientists took those conversations as the ''new science'' and then attempted, in the last 60 days or so, to translate that into new science that would replace the California spotted owl interim guidelines.
It seems ironic to me that when we began this back—and actually wrote up our community stability proposal and submitted it to the Forest Service -in 1993, it was a really big deal to have everybody say, ''Look, the CASPO interim guidelines are the rule. That is what we have to go with. We want to abide by them. We don't want to try to find loopholes in every instance and sort of push the envelope every time.''
At the time, the political climate was one in which the environmental movement was afraid that Congress would slap sufficiency language on everything, that agency actions would be governed by ''these laws, notwithstanding,'' the kinds of language. We wanted to go by the book. We naively at that time thought that the environmental movement would respect that adherence to rule and adherence to legal and scientific process.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That has, unfortunately, not been our experience this summer. The environmentalists waited until the public comment period had begun on the draft EIS before they brought forth a whole raft of ''new information'' about the way timber sales and other land disturbing projects had been implemented by the Forest Service over the last seven to 10 years.
I don't personally believe that that information came to light after May of 1999. I think that they were building it for a long time, and I believe that they timed it to have the agencies go into a tizzy during the public comment period of trying to figure out how to avoid yet another species crisis under the Endangered Species Act.
And so we arrived at this place this summer where the Quincy Library Group, as a group, and the law that was passed by Congress all say, ''We will implement these until these CASPO interim guidelines are replaced following the process set up by law.''
And instead, we had the agency people working in the back rooms, trying to negotiate new management prescriptions, new standards of judgment about whether—the extent of effects that can be tolerated under any management scheme, and we sort of arrived rocking and rolling at the last minute to cross the finish line and sign the record of decision.
I still firmly believe—I have a reputation for hanging tightly onto the National Environmental Policy Act. I still believe very, very strongly in the scientific process. I believe very strongly in the legal process. I think it protects all of us and all of our interests as citizens to observe those processes.
What the real science is, what the true status of the California spotted owl is in the Sierra Nevada is still something that hasn't really been determined; there are a lot of questions. There are many, many ecological questions that haven't even begun to be discussed and debated publicly. There is a lot of research yet to be done, and yet we know enough to get started.
And I think that is where the Quincy Library Group has been, is we had hoped in this process to have whatever new science was out there brought forward, but that it would be subjected to rigor, public disclosure, and discussion. Hopefully, we can find a better way to move forward with this, both in the Framework and during the pilot project implementation.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. It may surprise you, Ms. Blum, but I am one that likes to adhere very closely to NEPA, too, and for the very reasons that you have brought out in your comments.
Ms. BLUM. It works.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. It works. And although it is cumbersome and slow, it is—has been the one framework that has brought our thinking together. And the fact is that today we find ourselves trying to reach solutions without the rule of law.
Ms. BLUM. Exactly.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And the Quincy Library Group legislation served as the rule of law, and yet we find that we still have situations where people are operating outside the rule of law. So there is no way we can come together in our thinking because it is too uncertain, as you have said.
This kind of intellectual and scientific dishonesty not only destroys communities but the very environment and the very force of wildlife populations, wildlife habitat, watershed stability, the quality of streams. It destroys these very things we are all working for.
So I am so impressed with your comments. They needed to be said. And we together—lawmakers, citizens—need to require accountability and require that we operate under the rule of law. We may not always think alike within our own frame of reference, but we have the rule of law to come together under. So thank you very, very much.
I wanted to also turn to Mr. Terhune. You just thought you were getting out of a lot of questions, didn't you?
Mr. TERHUNE. I have been quiet as a mouse here.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask you, did the QLG plan or the QLG EIS deal at all with time restrictions on entry for fuel break construction concerning sensitive species? And you also mentioned in your opening statements about the frog, this little frog, the red-legged frog. Is that listed as a sensitive species or a threatened species or endangered?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MURPHY. Endangered.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is? Okay.
Mr. TERHUNE. It has been for some time.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Okay. Please proceed.
Mr. TERHUNE. I am not sure that—the timing of the—the first question had to do with the timing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did the QLG plan or the QLG EIS deal at all with time restrictions on entry fuel break construction concerning the sensitive species?
Mr. TERHUNE. Oh, I see. Yes. Well, in the limited operating periods, it would have that effect. On that, the two that I mentioned, the limited operating period would put—in some cases, if a species is found, it imposes a limited operating period. That could be a severe restriction because many of those operating periods span time when it is possible to get into those areas to work. A lot of it occurs during the summer period. So there would be some restrictions there, although we don't believe those would, for the most part, impose very much difficulty.
The difficulty with the one I mentioned, with the red-legged frog, is the uncertainty of the process more than anything else. It looks like it would be possible, not necessarily that it would occur, but it would be possible to use that language to insist on some rather onerous requirements for survey and proof that an almost nonexistent frog is not there. It is pretty difficult to do sometimes.
So there are concerns there. I mentioned those potential difficulties because they seem to be introduced with this and brought forward in the final environmental impact statement and the record of decision in a way that wasn't included in the draft EIS. And it seemed to be making a point about it, not the continuation of existing procedures, but something new to the process, and that is the worrisome part.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Murphy, I noticed you referring to either the plan or the ROD.
Mr. MURPHY. Sure.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you have anything to add?
Mr. MURPHY. Specifically, Mrs. Chairman, that the particular wording that came in the ROD really has no justification and is of concern to us. It says, ''Limited operating periods will be applied to unsurveyed habitat considered to be suitable for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.'' That is fine.
Then it says, ''And to habitat considered suitable for any species for which viability may be a concern.'' What we have done is just in that one sentence included the problem that Judge Dwyer is dealing with in the northern forest plan, which was this open-ended, undeterminable list that anyone can then say, ''Well, there is a viability concern for deer,'' and we have to then stop until we survey for deer.
So there is this strangely worded opening that we feel has the potential to undermine the entire process. And I think that the pressing need for the starting and going forward and implementing the proposal without those worries in hand is made very evident by the existing map of what is going on right now. And I will just put it up really quickly.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please do.
Mr. MURPHY. (Whereupon, Mr. Murphy used a defective lapel mike during the use of a map exhibit, reulting in the loss of a one minute and 32 second segment of his presentation.)
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And is today the first day that we have had winds?
Mr. MURPHY. Today is the first day in a week that we have had the wind.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Murphy, about fire modeling with regard to the new EIS and the ROD.
Mr. MURPHY. Well, thank you for that opportunity. That map is part of what we—the record of decision and the EIS process has gone through a very detailed section on fire modeling efforts. The Library Group was concerned after the SNEP project, which is the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, that came out just preceding it—it has a whole section on fire, particularly large, catastrophic fires.
And we have here the map showing the two known large, catastrophic fires surrounding the area that we are talking about. And, in particular, the one in the southeast corner stopped when it ran into the desert. It is the lowest fuel loading area of the forest. In fact, if anything, there is a mountain between those two fires of increasing fuel.
And the modeling that was done basically decided in our EIS that fires end, or at least the modeling ended, at the end of 24 hours, and that no fire has exceeded 7,500 acres in size.
Now, in light of a 44,000-acre fire on the land base, a 64,000-acre fire sitting adjacent to the land base, and six states—that is those two fires burned in a total of six burning periods—it is incongruous to us to understand why that level of analysis didn't include the potential for large, catastrophic fire.
And so if that analysis had been done, and if the models aren't supportive of doing that kind of analysis, the models are not capable of predicting these events, then what NEPA and the National Forest Management Act says is bring in the best experts.
Well, the best experts have just recently been convened in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, and they say the same thing—that there is a high risk of large fires, and that they recommend that the pilot project concept of defensible fuel profile zones needs to be rigorously tested and monitored. So it just seems odd that the EIS did not ever deal with this clear and present danger in terms of scale.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is a very good point. Do you think that a new model could be developed? What would that entail?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, I am not sure a new model necessarily. Sometimes nature, no matter how well we try to measure it, has its own way of dealing with these things. And certainly these events occur with combinations of wind and fire risk, weather, and so forth, that do not occur very often. I mean, as we see right now, we have many, many starts, and we don't have the wind. Well, the wind is coming, so, you know, the chances of this occurring are relatively low.
But the risk, the issue which we want to point out, is when it happens—and clearly, in the last seven years it has happened twice, very, very close to us—that the amount of owl habitat and other species habitat that could be lost in a single three-day event swamps all of the potential risk of what our effort would do.
And also, there is a time scale here that is really important to be brought out. A large, catastrophic wildfire takes centuries to become owl habitat again. A defensible fuel profile zone is owl habitat within—in many cases, it is owl habitat the day it is finished. But it likely is only at most five to 10 years from becoming fully suitable nesting habitat again.
And so here we are looking at this minor adjustment in habitat in currently unoccupied habitat that the normal QLG proposal would have done, whereas the ROD now avoids owl habitat altogether. But we are looking at the alternate to that is removal of that owl habitat for a better part of the next century.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, your comments are so well taken. It makes me wonder—there are intelligent people inside the Forest Service, as we know—why can't they see this? There is a far greater impact in not implementing the Quincy Library plan than in just letting it exist as it is; the impact being we destroy the forests, the wildlife, the community.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sometime we are going to have to come to grips, Congressman Herger, with what is really driving this because it isn't science, it isn't wildlife habitat, it isn't wildlife, it isn't forest health, because everything that is happening out there defies reasoning. We have highly intelligent people working in the agencies, and yet we see this kind of intellectual and scientific dishonesty still emerging that creates confusion.
There is something beyond this, and I am not able to get my hands on it.
Mr. Murphy, do you have any comments?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, I am not sure that there is an answer to that question. I think the best possible thing we can do is admit we do not know, and then, as the laws require, we go forward with a monitored pilot project of an experiment to test. And we have to test that experiment at the scale of the problem.
If the problem is anywhere from 40 to 190 million acres of the west, this million and a half acre area of an experiment is tiny in comparison, but it is absolutely crucial that we go forward with it quickly, that we have the monitoring in place so that we will know more than we know today, and we can begin to move beyond these what appear to be honest scientific disagreements.
But that is the only way I can see that we can go forward is to take carefully crafted, very restrictive controls to go forward with, and also really put in the monitoring that is necessary to be able to know those answers five years from now.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I think in part Mr. Jackson answered my question in his testimony, because until we have the decision makers in Washington, DC, and those who are speculating in academia, begin to develop a great respect for the common sense of the people on the ground, we are going to continue to have to deal with vague theories instead of scientific facts.
I want to thank all of you very much.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to ask Congressman Herger if you have any further questions that you would like to ask before I close the panel.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe one last, if I could, and that would be, what steps would you suggest to the Forest Service to get the project implemented quickly? And what type of schedule would you suggest for implementation? And are you consulting with the Forest Service now? Whoever would like to respond to that. Ms. Blum?
Ms. BLUM. It is the intention of Quincy Library Group Steering Committee that of course we will be available for whatever consultations. We have in the past, and we will probably do so in the future, suggest to the project manager for the Forest Service, or to other Forest Service officials, that we get together in a public sense, not just the Quincy Library Group.
It is almost like we don't want to walk into the backroom, just like we don't want anybody else to walk into the backroom. We believe that public disclosure and public discussion is probably the solidest and the most efficient way to get to a long-lasting, reasonable, legal solution for many of these resource conflicts that right now there seems to be no obvious resolution to them.
I think that we intend to participate in all of the project level planning processes within the normal public venues, probably more enthusiastically than we have bothered the Forest Service in the past. But in addition to that, we will clearly be available. We intend to continue to participate actively in the Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework planning process also.
And I think our hope is that the Forest Service will continue to work on finding ways to collaborate and cooperate with the public, which is who they serve.
Mr. HERGER. And I know this was a problem for awhile, and I want to thank the Forest Service. I did contact them and they were very good on, I understand, getting together and having meetings here in the last several months. And I want to commend the Forest Service for that.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you have any steps that you would suggest to the Forest Service to be able to get the project implemented quickly? Mr. Terhune?
Mr. TERHUNE. I think the key to that is that in the draft EIS and the final EIS there is analysis which is based largely on example-type things, not pinned down and not detailed enough. But the first step is to apply and take a—apply the newer concepts that have come out about the final EIS, to go back and apply them to those sketch maps, go back and apply them to the tentative distinctions that were made on where might be the best place to implement this.
And one thing that has to be done, if we are going to avoid that habitat, is now in the mitigation and constructing the DFPZs. The obvious way to do it is to take another look at those maps, see where those DFPZs might be better located, to avoid the necessity for the gaps in the DFPZ system, to make it continuous, to make it effective, and at the same time do the best possible job of avoiding the habitat that is the problem.
Those are the problems I think that are immediately to be worked on, and it is—in a sense, it is a fortunate timing here because that is the kind of thing we can work on, that they can work on in this rest of the summer, in the fall, and have some good projects actually ready to hit the ground in the following season.
The first thing we should be doing, I believe, is taking another close look at criteria for how are we going to decide where these projects should go, make sure that it gets off the ground in a good, solid way—at that stage. That will give us the best possible protection from successful attack in appeals and in litigation.
So it is crucial that in the next month or so when we get the information, where are those—how should those maps be drawn? That is the kind of thing that can very well be discussed and indicated in the immediate future, but put a very solid foundation for the rest of the project.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HERGER. You're hitting on this a bit here, but also my question is, what type of schedule would you suggest for implementation?
Did you have a comment?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, I did. I think it is absolutely critical that we get across the question of pace. In our county, the average fire cycle is between seven and 12 years. This project was designed to be actually slower than that, more conservative than that. The way it could fail is if we don't do it at a pace that would be necessary to effect the landscape.
And I guess what I'm saying is this question of uncertainty, a doctor has it every time he sees a cut. But because he is uncertain doesn't mean that he only does three stitches and leaves the rest of it open. This project is designed to go forward at a pace necessary to deal with the scale of the landscape.
If in the first year we don't reach the 40- to 60,000 number, it will be a sign that the Forest Service is not giving a full effort. Their excuse, if they have one, will be that they don't have the funding.
So the question of pace becomes two things. Do we have the funds? And the second thing is, does the Forest Service proceed at enough of a pace to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program? And so, to us, it is all a matter of appropriate pace to deal with the scale of the problem. And in that regard, then the one and a half million acres that we are dealing with can truly serve as a model for the other 40 to 191 million that people identify as having the same set of problems.
I think anybody who has seen the Boise front during fires is well aware that this problem is not endemic only to the Northern Sierra Nevada. And for us to be useful, for Congress to have dealt with everyone's problem equally by beginning here, we need to show the pace and the landscape effect. And so a smaller project is the only way that we can finish, in my opinion.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HERGER. And I think that brings into play the absolute necessity of a continual consulting with those of you who actually put together—put the science together and the plan together specific for these three national forests. And that is really the great pleasure, the great satisfaction I have had as a member of Congress, is unlike so many pieces of legislation this isn't something we—3,000 miles away—wrote.
This is legislation that the community, all of the factions, environmental community, the wood products, everyone working together, those of you who live there put this together—why it is so crucial that we have a very regular consulting between yourselves and the Forest Service to ensure that this is implemented in the way it was intended and in the way that the Congress voted virtually unanimously, bipartisan—Republican, Democrat, conservative, the liberals, everyone—to see that it happened.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger.
I have just one final question for Mr. Terhune. And I wanted to ask you about the Grazing Committees. Have the cattlemen's concerns been met? And is there some way to be able to bring the cattlemen into the mix that QLG plan implementation in the future does not adversely affect their operations?
Mr. TERHUNE. I am probably not the most familiar with cattlemen issues on this. But to the best of my knowledge there has been participation, and their concerns have been heard throughout the process. That doesn't mean that we purposely took on the task of settling all cattle problems between cattlemen and the Forest Service.
It meant that we attempted to keep this program at least neutral with regard to the issues involved. And we don't believe that we have done harm to the long-term interests of the cattle industry. We do hope that they will continue to be involved in implementation to take care of their interests as well as anybody should.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are not attempting—and we believe that this legislation has been designed and specifically provides for adequate protection—full protection of the cattlemen's association and the cattlemen's interests. They will certainly continue to be heard, as they should. I don't know if they have anything to say on this.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Jackson, do you have any comments about that?
Mr. JACKSON. Certainly. One of the most thrilling things about the Library Group program is watching the spinoffs. I went to a meeting recently of the Sierra Nevada Alliance, which is a group of grass-roots environmental folks throughout the Sierra Nevadas, and was just thrilled to sit there and listen to a joint presentation of the environmentalists and the Cattlemen's Association about how they were working out the problems, doing trail rides together, meeting with each other, working on solutions.
The cattlemen now have their own land conservancy, so that they can keep their families on the land and still handle the riparian zones in a way that provides environmental quality and a certain payment to the farmers because of—and the cattlemen because of the changes they need to make.
It is not something done by the Library Group. It is these folks' own Library Group program, and it thrills me to watch it begin to happen. And I would like to give a lot of credit to both the California Cattlemen's Association and the California environmental movement for what they are doing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, you have certainly set a fine example, and this is a great spinoff. And I am very, very pleased to hear about it.
For the record, as Chairman, I do want to say for the record my concern is that the legislation that we passed did not do damage to any use rights. And I will be watching very carefully to make sure there is no delegation of authority that has been given that may accomplish any kind of violation of anyone's property use rights.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so I did want to say that for the record, because I do not want to see the QLG legislation used or interpreted in a manner that would do damage to any industry group or any environmental group, any of our users of our national forests.
So, again, I think it all boils down, as you have said so aptly, to an ongoing respect for the common sense of the people on the ground. And you have demonstrated something that we in the Congress have been hoping we could, and we have been your assistants, and we will continue to be your assistants as you drive the solutions home.
Thank you very much for your fine testimony. I look forward to working with you as we see the success of this program develop. Thank you.
And I call the second panel—Mr. William Stewart, Chief, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in Sacramento, California; Ms. Fran Roudebush, Plumas County Supervisor, District 1, Quincy, California; Mr. Frank Stewart, Counties Quincy Library Group Forester, Chico, California; and Mr. Dick O'Sullivan, California Cattlemen's Association Public Lands Committee, Sacramento, California.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to thank the witnesses very much for joining us here today. And as you can see, we are sort of letting the rules relax because we want to take as much time and opportunity to hear from you on the record.
As you know, it is the plan of the Chairman to place all outside witnesses under the oath, and I believe that you have been given a set of rules—the Committee rules—that address this issue. So at this time, I wonder if you might stand and raise your hand to the square, your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
To begin testimony, we call on Mr. William Stewart.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STEWART, CHIEF, FIRE AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, SACRAMENTO
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WILLIAM STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairman Chenoweth, and Congressman Herger. My name is William Stewart, and I am representing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Director Andrea Tuttle couldn't be here today because she is at our State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection meeting in Sacramento.
But I am, as you have heard, the Chief of the Fire and Resource Assessment Program for CDF, and we are responsible for doing the Department's analysis of the QLG activities as well as responsible for coordinating responses with the other relevant state agencies.
For all departments, I want to welcome the opportunity to provide some input, not only from CDF but also the Department of Fish and Game, as well as our Resources Agency.
A little bit of background—I have a Master's and Ph.D. in Forest Economics from one of those elite universities that Mr. Jackson so lovingly referred to, and have been involved in a number of these activities. I was a consultant for some California issues on FEMAT, have worked on one of the early California spotted owl assessments on some of the economic impacts, and was also a principal resource economist for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project for about two years, up until 1996 when I joined the State.
Given that the Forest Service has made the programmatic decision to select Alternative 2 with the mitigation package, I want to direct my comments to actions we see as necessary for effective implementation of this project. Effective implementation of the project is what Congress is asking for, so that we can learn from this and not just create more studies.
My office has already reviewed large studies on the Sierra Nevada, and I personally don't want another one to have to read again. I think these comments are consistent with the record of decision, and I think the interests represented by all of the stakeholders.
We see three areas that we think are going to need to be bolstered in some ways during the implementation project. The first is a monitoring and adaptive management framework with a strong scientific basis so that we can learn from this pilot project. As we heard in the previous session, there is a lot of uncertainty. But if we just wait and leave uncertainty as a reason to do nothing, we will never move forward on that.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second we are dealing with a lot of fire related issues, as was pointed out earlier. When we don't have high winds in computer models, we can miss what really drives how many burnt acres we have. In our fire modeling, we have probabilities of all fires up to about 200 acres, and after that we just call them ''big.'' We don't know how big the fire is going to be at that time, but you do have to address that fact, and there are ways beyond the standard engineering approaches that we need to address the issues of fire risk in the Northern Sierra Nevada.
I think central to that need is a more transparent fire planning process. We read nearly all of the different fire modeling for the Sierra Nevada as well as for the rest of the state. There are many different aspects and many different risk factors, and there are many different potential impacts that are all involved.
What is necessary is to continue our work with the Forest Service as well as the QLG on promoting approaches such as a California Fire Plan, which is an approach we have used before that covers all private and Federal lands, to try to bring all of the pieces together and make some decisions that makes the process move forward.
I will put in the record a copy of the Fire Plan. And just as an example, look on our web page. We have an example of the fuels that we developed with the other agencies—with the Forest Service and the BLM. The example map was a piece of the QLG area. There is a small cross-section that shows the different fuel types that can be used in modeling, so that we can all work from the same basic data and don't have one set of people using this model, someone else using this model, and someone else bringing up an anecdote, a memory from their childhood or whatever. We need some clarity and some consistency among all of the agencies and the stakeholders.
And, third, it is necessary to have integration of the economic analysis into the implementation, monitoring, and assessment. The QLG bill, as written, would take into account the economy of this area. I think in the draft EIS it is buried in the back. I think it is going to be very important to make sure we bring in a cost-effective approach toas as a pillar of a working landscape management for the forests of California.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I just hope that can be brought in because the cost-effectiveness mandate from Congress is set forth very strongly. And we hope that that is the road we are on and we don't sit around and argue about unknown lifestyles of red-logged frogs.
I think we all agree on the value of working with locally-based processes, such as the Quincy Library Group, the importance of creating a forest landscape that is better suited for fire than the one we have created to date, and to really provide the mix the benefits of managing a national forest as working landscapes that, both produces commodity and non-commodity benefits from the national forests. I think the complexities of this issue require that we move towards a more transparent model, understanding where we are going, as opposed to the planning processes that we have now.
I think that opportunity has now begun to finish the EIS process, and I think it is important to not look at these models just to get it through the hurdles of NEPA but to actually use it to involve all of the stakeholders and learn from what we are doing.
One thing I would like to mention is that during the draft environmental impact statement, the Department of Fish and Game, in our comments that we submitted earlier, did focus on the need to predict and to monitor the potential impact on key wildlife species.
It is an ongoing issue. We weren't asking for immediate action, but rather to have a scientific approach to learn as we move along on how species are impacted, not just the California spotted owl but all of the species, not just in the National Forest but also in the DFPZ. And I think we can learn a lot and move forward on many of these things, so that after five years we have a much better understanding of how this works.
I mentioned again just some of the work on the California Fire Plan. I need to emphasize that we must utilize what we have across all of the agencies—the common information based on fuel types, fire regimes, fire models, and wildlife models. The problem is many of these models were built for specialists to use, but in this process they need to be understandable by the public and the stakeholders.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are committed. My director has involved the resources to commit some of our scientific personnel to work with the Forest Service, to get models and information that works for all of the stakeholders.
And finally, as I mentioned before, this is a very important project for us from a regional economic point of view. There are enormous benefits described in the environmental impact statement that could come out of this. We have also looked at the harvest aspects and feel they will not harm the recreational use of the national forest, which is really the other national value here. I think these two aspects are very complementary, and I think they should be ensured that they stay that way.
Finally, I would like to just provide my appreciation for having this hearing. I want to extend the offer from Director Tuttle and her staff that we would like to work with the Forest Service, as well as the Quincy Library Group stakeholders, to move this process forward. We see this as a learning experience on how we all in California can manage both private and public forests in the west for the benefit of all.
Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart.
[The information follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mr. William Stewart follows:]
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STEWART, CHIEF, FIRE AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION ON THE HERGER-FEINSTEIN QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Dear Madam Chairman Chenoweth
My name is William Stewart and I am representing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Director Andrea Tuttle was not able to be here as she must attend the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection meetings in Sacramento. The Fire and Resource Assessment Program of CDF was responsible for our department's analysis as well as the coordination with other relevant state departments. CDF's Fire and Resource Assessment Program is responsible for analyzing trends in the state's natural, social, and economic systems; monitoring and assessing the condition and availability of wildland resources; and identifying alternative responses to changing trends and conditions. Our mandate covers private, state owned, and Federal wildlands. Prior to joining the state I was a forest and regional economic consultant on numerous projects such as FEMAT (1993) and the Report of the Policy Implementation Planning Team to the Steering Committee for the Californian Spotted Owl Assessment (1994). From 1994 to 1996 I was the principal resource economist for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP).
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act now that the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision are out. In addition to my primary task of representing CDF, I will also summarize the main points of the California Resources Agency and Department of Fish and Game that were also sent in comment letters to the U.S. Forest Service in July 1999.
I would like to reiterate the offers from Secretary for Resources Mary D. Nichols, CDF Director Andrea Tuttle, and DFG Director Robert Hight for continued technical assistance in areas of strong mutual interest.
Given that the USDA Forest Service has made the programmatic decision of selecting Alternative 2 with a mitigation package, I will direct my comments towards actions we see as necessary for effective implementation of a project that will have significant positive impact on fire risk, forest management, and economic vitality in the region. Overall, we see to strengthen three areas of the project:
• A monitoring and adaptive management framework with a strong scientific basis so that we can learn from the pilot project.
• A more transparent fire planning process similar to the California Fire Plan that combines the numerous assets, fire risk factors, and potential impacts of fuels treatments to guide implementation and assessment of site specific projects
• A greater integration of economic analysis into the implementation, monitoring, and assessment of individual projects to meet the cost-effective mandate of the Act.
We agree on the value of working with locally based processes, the importance of creating a forest landscape better suited for fire, and the benefits of managing national forests as working landscapes that produce a sustainable mix of commodity and non-commodity resources. The complexity of the issues requires a planning tool that can effectively integrate the different issues for different stages of the process (strategic planning, implementation, and monitoring) as well as for different users (analysts, implementers, and stakeholders). More specifically, we proposed that the USFS use a rigorous, scientific process, such as or similar to the California Fire Plan, for identifying areas with the greatest assets at risk to fire, areas with hazardous fuels accumulations, areas prone to severe fire weather, and areas where an unacceptable number of fires have escaped initial attack. A more thorough description of the California Fire Plan can be viewed on our web sites (hftp://frap. cdf.ca. gov/fire-plan/, http://www.firesafecouncil.orgfirgplan.html), and http://frap.cdf ca.gov/data/fire data/hazard/mainftames.html.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Apply Adaptive Management
Our earlier comments stressed that, to be meaningful, the pilot project should apply a range of fuel management and silvicultural treatments and carefully monitor them over time for the achievement of desired outcomes. A cost-effective, statistically-based sampling system that measures the cause and effect relationships of different management activities is necessary to ensure that the pilot project is a productive learning and demonstration experience as Congress has indicated it to be. Without the collection and analysis of monitoring data, applying one or two treatments (reserves being a type of treatment) across a varying landscape for five years will provide limited insight into sustainable forest management. The scientific review panel called for in the HFQLG Act could be used to ensure that treatment approaches and monitoring results allow for this learning. CDF is willing to provide some of our professional staff to the scientific review panel.
The technical details in terms of harvest units, standards for important habitat components at the forest stand level, layout of defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) in terms of linear or area design, how they interact with riparian systems, prioritization based on effectiveness of reducing probability of catastrophic fire losses, etc., will all require further refinement beforehand and rapid feedback during adaptive management. An adaptive management approach should be used to provide for the collection of critical monitoring data and the alteration (of kind, scope, or placement) of management activities needed to avoid adverse environmental impacts or other violations of Federal law.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Monitoring efforts will be crucial if we all are to learn from this effort. It should include post-project compliance and effectiveness monitoring. Compliance and effectiveness monitoring should be designed to inform an adaptive management process. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and USFS State and Private Forestry have successfully collaborated on the development of change detection methods for vegetation canopy cover that could inform a monitoring and adaptive management effort. (htty://fray.cdf ca.gov/projects/change detection/change detection projecthtml)
The analysis of the alternatives does not disclose the longer-term impacts of the proposed vegetation treatments. Analysis is specific to the immediate impacts associated with project implementation but does not describe the longer-term impacts of habitat protection that may result—e.g., the reduction in loss of California spotted owl habitat due to catastrophic wildfire, or the faster rate at which stands treated with single tree selection develop old forest characteristics. Where short-term adverse impacts are identified, these should be considered in the context of longer-term, often positive effects. The potential long-term effects on vegetation should be described when they have been modeled.
Wildlife Habitats Across the Whole Project Area
The concerns of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) focused on the need to more accurately predict and monitor the potential impacts on key wildlife species. The DFG was specifically concerned that the treatments as proposed in the DEIS could have serious negative impacts on spotted owl habitat based on the metrics used in the DEIS (e.g. percentage of suitable habitat within preferred ranges, loss of important habitat elements after silviculture prescriptions, habitat degradation outside of defined sites). Given the existing information demonstrating a decline in the lambda estimate of California spotted owl in the project area, DFG stressed the need for a conservative approach. Based on their initial reading of the Record of Decision, DFG considers it essential that the mitigation measures be implemented and that the monitoring process is thorough enough to increase our understanding of the relationship of California-spotted owls and forest structure. DFG also stresses the need to consider and monitor wildlife habitat attributes in the DFPZs and other land management activities.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has far fewer biologists than the Department of Fish and Game but is in agreement that the relationship between owls and silviculture treatments must be empirically documented and analzed during the implementation phase. CDF noted that the original CASPO report (p. 82) presented a weak linear, not threshold, relationship (a correlation of 0.60) between ''suitable habitat'' as classified by the USFS and owl density. The Bart (1995) article quoted in the DEIS also noted a linear, rather than threshold relationship. In addition, CASPO also reported owl use of areas twenty years earlier on the Lassen National Forest still provided habitat benefits that were roughly one third of that measured for suitable habitat (p. 173). Given the potential variability in the prey base and specific habitat elements that would affect the prey base, the relationship between suitable habitat and adult survivorship may not be the only important relationship that needs to be addressed. Both CDF and DFG strongly support the integration of the mitigation and monitoring components into the selected alternative.
Fire Risk and the Costs and Benefits of Fire Risk Reduction Activities
As mentioned earlier in the description of the California Fire Plan, CDF wants to ensure that state and Federal fire protection efforts are well coordinated. The understanding of the relative effectiveness of different spatial arrangements of fuel modification programs is constantly improving. An interagency group in California works together to ensure that all departments use the same high quality fuels layer. A good example that coincidentally covers a section of this project area is highlighted on our web site (http://frqp. edf. ca. gov/ data/ fire data/ fuels/ fuels.htm) and is also attached to this document. We also believe greater coordination on fire planning modeling and monitoring could significantly improve both the USFS's and CDF's ability to plan and implement effective activities to reduce fire risks.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As designed, the DFPZ strategy has two major components: to reduce fire severity (and, hence, adverse effects) on treated areas and to limit fire size such that untreated areas are not subject to high severity fires. Using a range of mixes of linear and area DFPZs could significantly the overall effectiveness of the program. Many of these technical issues could be effectively explored if a rigorous, scientific planning tool similar to the California Fire Plan was used. Providing the planning tool in a forum where it could be used by stakeholders to explore different potential outcomes would be beneficial. We would be very willing to work with the USFS and the local stakeholders during this process.
The Need for Clearer Descriptions of Probable Long Term Impacts
The difficulty of discerning the probable outcomes of the pilot project as described in the DEIS makes it clear that the Forest Service needs to develop a more transparent decision support system that is based on good science and incorporates multiple variables. Hopefully, this will be one of the valuable outcomes of project implementation.
It is central to the selection of an alternative to assess the long-term positive and negative effects of each alternative. Such an assessment would include an evaluation of the relative effectiveness of proposed land treatments to protecting areas of importance or resource value from catastrophic fire effects. The DEIS should describe how the 5 year plan will affect future forest management. Although timber growth and harvest modeling extends into the future for a century, similar assessments are not developed in even a qualitative manner for other resources. In addition, there is little description of forest management and intensity of land treatment in areas not occupied by California spotted owl PACs and SOHAS.
Proper Citations from Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Chapters
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The DEIS' use of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report is often selective. The most significant problem is the claim that the DEIS follows SNEP in using the LS/OG and ALSE systems for defining individual polygons for resource management. Beyond the specific chapters with unique authors in SNEP Volumes II and III and the Addendum, the applicable reference from SNEP regarding old growth forests would be Volume I, Chapter 6 on ''Late Successional Old-Growth Forest Conditions.'' This chapter presented three, not one, equally plausible strategies to counter the major declines in late successional forests that were found during the SNEP assessments. ''Strategy 1: Areas of Late Successional Emphasis'' corresponds to the information included in the DEIS. However ''Strategy 2: Distributed Forest Conditions'' and ''Strategy 3: Integrated Case Study'' are also SNEP strategies. Strategy 3's focus on integrating seven different goals-late successional forests, vegetation, wildlife habitat, watershed and aquatic areas, fire protection, community well-being, and private land contributions to ecosystem sustainability—is a more realistic SNEP strategy that should have been referred to in the DEIS.
The use of non-repeatable forest classification schemes to delineate specific treatment areas will present a serious challenge for accurate monitoring. The LS/OG and ALSE characterizations are critical since they are the major difference between the alternatives but may or may not be the most important acres for California spotted owl habitat and defensible fuel protection zones. We would suggest that the Forest Service utilize their existing forest inventory and analysis program to track the effects of different management prescriptions in a rigorous manner.
Economic Impacts for a Region with High Unemployment
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Alternative 2 will make very large contributions to the local and regional economies. This information should be included in the ''Summary Comparison of Alternatives'' in Chapter 2. Compared to Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would infuse an additional $381 million in personal income and $760 million of total sales into the eight-county project area over the five-year project period. In addition, on an annual basis, Alternative 2 would directly or indirectly create over 1,600 annual new jobs more than would be created under Alternative 4. As shown in the DEIS, this level of activity would reduce the region's currently high unemployment rates to close to the state average.
Impact beyond those directly in the forest products industry. No tradeoff with recreation related employment. Based on our analysis of EDD data.
Conclusion
The HFQLG pilot project represents a major opportunity for the state and Federal Governments to work together on landscape level vegetation management to protect public safety and to protect and enhance environmental values. We ask that the Forest Service, as it moves forward with analysis and implementation of the pilot project, engage in a more meaningful way with the department.
The Forest Service needs to begin immediately to develop the monitoring and adaptive management framework necessary for meaningful implementation of the pilot project. Variations in on-the-ground design of DFPZs and timber harvest units will provide valuable information to guide resource management in both the short and the long term. Without a clearer presentation of the individual components and an adaptive management approach, this information will not be garnered. Also, the Acts mandate to be cost-effective requires a greater integration of economic analysis into the implementation, monitoring, and assessment of individual projects conducted under the pilot.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, the department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. My staff and I are willing and interested in working with you to help make the implementation of the HFQLG Act a successful and educational pilot project that enhances the environment while providing significant economic opportunities. We strongly encourage the Forest Service to make the necessary modifications to its DEIS and implementation plans for the pilot project to ensure this outcome.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes the forest supervisor from Plumas County, Fran Roudebush, for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF FRAN ROUDEBUSH, PLUMAS COUNTY SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 1, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA
Ms. ROUDEBUSH. Good morning, Chairman Chenoweth, members of the Committee, Congressman Herger. Thank you for being here and for allowing me to participate in this panel. I am Fran Roudebush, Chair of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. I am also representing the Regional Council of Rural Counties, which consists of 27 member counties in California. I also represent the Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority of RCRC.
Eleven counties have submitted letters or resolutions of support for the QLG plan and Alternative 2. Six of those counties are: Yuba, Butte, Glenn, Modoc, Trinity, and Siskiyou Counties. But five other counties—Plumas, Tehama, Lassen, Shasta, and Sierra Counties—boards have worked cooperatively and jointly and hired a forester to ensure that the congressional vote of 429 to 1 in favor of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act bill is fully implemented. These counties represent 92 percent of the acres in the QLG plan.
We have letters of support from the Northern California Supervisors Association and the California State Association of Counties. I have enclosed several of these letters or resolutions to introduce into the record.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that the end result of full funding and implementation of the QLG pilot project will be protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, our watersheds, and all other national forest resources.