U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

40–051 cc 1997

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 858

A BILL TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO

CONDUCT A PILOT PROJECT ON DESIGNATED LANDS

WITHIN PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO DEMONSTRATE

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES PROPOSED BY THE QUINCY LIBRARY

GROUP AND TO AMEND CURRENT LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR THESE NATIONAL

FORESTS TO CONSIDER THE INCORPORATION OF

THESE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

MARCH 5, 1997—WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–10

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

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, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

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-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

————— —————

————— —————

————— —————

BILL SIMMONS, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held March 5, 1997 ................................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 858 ....................................................................................................... 57

Statements of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho; and Chairman, Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health ..................................... 1

Fazio, Hon. Vic, a U.S. Representative from California ................................ 7

Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California ......................... 4

Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a U.S. Representative from New York .............. 6

Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California ........................ 3

Vento, Hon. Bruce, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .......................... 2

Statements of witnesses:

Blumberg, Louis, Assistant Regional Director, The Wilderness Society ..... 33

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 43

Coates, Bill, Supervisor, Plumas County Board of Supervisors ................... 30

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 56

Connaughton, Kent, Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest,

Susanville, CA, U.S.D.A. .............................................................................. 12

Henson, Ryan, Conservation Associate, California Wilderness Coalition ... 35

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 41

Jackson, Michael, Esq., Friend of Plumas Wilderness .................................. 31

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 69

Lyons, James, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment,

Department of Agriculture ........................................................................... 12

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 48

Madrid, Mark, Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA,

U.S.D.A. ......................................................................................................... 12

Nelson, Tom, District Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries ............................. 28

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 51

Sprague, Lynn, Regional Forester, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, San Francisco, CA ......................................................................................................... 12

Additional material supplied:

Quincy Library Group Position Paper: Fuels Management for Fire Protection ................................................................................................................. 52

Sierra Club: Report of the Chairman to the Board of Directors ................... 67

Communications received:

Joint letter from 19 signers dated February 26, 1997, to Senators Boxer

and Feinstein ................................................................................................. 46

Nelson, Tom: Letter of March 21, 1997, to Hon. Helen Chenoweth ............ 72
(1)

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY

AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:50 p.m., in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Subcommittee will come to order. The

Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 858, the

Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of 1997.

Under Rule 4[g] of the committee rules, any oral opening statements at the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the ranking

minority member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses

sooner and help Members to keep to their schedules. Therefore, if

other Members have statements, they can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest

Health convenes today for a hearing on H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997.

The bill was introduced last week by Mr. Herger of California with

his colleagues, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and

Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa. I am pleased that at our

first hearing the Subcommittee on Forests will consider this bipartisan legislation that was developed by a diverse group of people

and interests.

A portion of the area covered by this bill is in Mr. Fazio’s district,

and I am pleased that he is planning to join us today to testify on

this legislation. Three members of the Quincy Library Group will

also testify. In addition, we will hear from Under Secretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons, and representatives from two environmental

groups from outside the Quincy Library Group area.

Mr. Herger’s legislation demonstrates that it is possible for people of very different interests to agree on objectives for the management of our national forests. They have also agreed on a plan for

achieving those objectives.
2

The Quincy Library Group is to be commended for developing solutions for us to consider today instead of asking Congress to referee over continued conflicts.

I hope today that the Administration will add its support to the

bill since Secretary Glickman and Under Secretary Lyons have

been so supportive of this effort over the past several years.

As our witnesses will explain, the Quincy Library Group Forest

Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 is the culmination of

more than four years of work by those who have the most at stake

in the management of the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National

Forests, that is, the people who live and work there. They are the

people who care most about sustaining both the health of the national forests and the social and economic heath of their community. The legislation aims to implement a locally designed consensus-based plan to improve the condition of the national forests,

reduce fire danger to the communities and still provide needed economic benefits.

I commend Mr. Herger and the Quincy Library Group for all the

hard work that you have done to bring this to fruition. I look forward to your testimony, and I welcome my two colleagues, Mr.

Herger and Mr. Fazio, to the Subcommittee.

The Chairman will recognize the ranking minority member when

he arrives for any statement he may have. Mr. Vento, do you have

a statement for the ranking member?

[Report of Sierra Club may be found at end of hearing.]

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM MINNESOTA

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Madame Chair. I ask unanimous consent

of all Members to have the opportunity to put statements in the

record, and I will place Mr. Miller’s statement in the record. I understand Mr. Hinchey is on his way, but may have been delayed.

I would just voice my interest in this proposal. I have heard variations of this proposal and the Quincy Library Group for many

years, and I note that while the bill states 1993, that the update

is February 24, 1997. So the themes and variations of what might

be the guiding principles over this 2,400,000 acres—clearly a significant portion of the forested lands that are subject to the management of the professional Forest Service—are indeed substantial

proposals.

While I appreciate the interest of the local community and understand the good faith that they have worked on to come up with

the proposal, I am very concerned, that as you said, these are national forest lands. I want to look to the remedies and the safeguards that have existed with regard to the forest management

plans in the past. Insofar as they can be dealt with and look at

ideas for pilots, I think that most of us would want to cooperate

and go along with some recommendations along these lines, but

certainly only with the assurance that the safeguards would be

present in the legislation that deal with the environmental and social concerns that our forests serve on a multi-use purpose basis.

I cannot stay for the entire hearing. We are late getting started

because of conflicts that have occurred today, so I will have to leave

shortly. I want to assure you that I intend to follow up.
3

I know that there is a schedule that has been put out for the consideration of this bill in the full House in a month. If there is going

to be a lot of intense work on it over that period of time on a bipartisan basis, perhaps we can come to agreement on the many questions that remain.

The bill itself is rather simple. The plan itself since being modified in 1997, I think, has other ramifications that we want to look

at very carefully, and I think that some of those are quoted in Mr.

Miller’s statement. I think Mr. Hinchey will be arriving, and he

has a formal statement with regard to these matters perhaps

which he will elucidate during the hearing process.

Thank you, Madame Chairman.

[Statement of Hon. George Miller follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Madame Chairman, I want to commend the Quincy Library Group for their participation on forestry issues in their local area. I support public participation in the

management of our national forests. However, the issues addressed by H.R. 858 extend far beyond the interests of the 25 individuals and organizations who are part

of the Quincy Library Group.

I have serious concerns with the legislation before us today for several reasons.

First, I think it is a dangerous precedent to be legislating the management plans

for an individual forest or group of forests, which is in effect what H.R. 858 does.

There are over 150 national forests. If we start down this path today, where will

it end? Secondly, I don’t think we should have management of national forests by

committee, especially one made up of only local individuals. People across California, indeed across this country, have a stake in the management of the Plumas,

Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests.

Beyond those two broad policy concerns, I have particular problems with the bill

itself. A project covering 2.5 million acres, with specific management instructions for

at least the next five years, is hardly a test. It is a significant course of action with

the potential for significant impacts on a large body of national forest land. This

is an example of putting the cart before the horse. The Forest Service is told to immediately implement this so-called ‘‘pilot project.’’ Only then are they to begin the

process to amend the forest plans to conform with what is already occurring. I am

not aware that the Quincy Library Group proposal has ever been subject of an EIS,

or the public hearing and other procedural safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act.

I find it odd that a bill that is supposed to deal with forest health speaks only

to logging and fuels management. There is no mention made in the bill to ecosystem

management, protection of watersheds or riparian areas, wildlife, endangered species other than the spotted owl, or recreation. The unwritten intention may be there

but there is certainly no bill direction on these vital aspects of forest management.

Key terms are also left undefined, left open to who knows what interpretation later.

It is certainly not clear to me that this bill is consistent with the California Spotted Owl Process or the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). In fact, one of the

important findings of SNEP was that the Sierra Nevada had to be looked at as a

whole. Yet, here is the first bill to be considered on the Sierras after SNEP and we

are back again dealing with the Sierra Nevada in pieces. We don’t know what impact H.R. 858 will have on the three affected national forests, yet alone on the other

six national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

I for one am not ready to embark down this risky, untested policy path. Unless

people can come up with a lot of good answers, I will not support this bill.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento, and as I remember

watching your career as you built the National Forest Management

Act back here and many of the amendments, it was interesting to

know at that time what your concerns were about consensus building and so I am very pleased that this is our first bill to come before this committee.

I do apologize that the committee is meeting late. It was unavoidable and this Chairman will be very particular about the time
4

that we start unless it is unavoidable, and I cannot foresee that we

would have these kinds of circumstances again.

I would like to introduce our first witness. It is with great pleasure that I introduce my colleague, Wally Herger. We would look

forward to Mr. Fazio coming in when he can arrive.

I have great respect for their very hard work and diligence in

bringing this bill to us. Mr. Herger, let me remind the witnesses

that under our committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but that their entire statement will appear

in the record.

The Chairman now recognizes Wally Herger. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Madame Chair Chenoweth

for your assistance in bringing this legislation to the committee.

I would also like to thank our local Quincy Library Group civic

leaders including Michael Jackson, Bill Coates, and Tom Nelson for

being here today and for going on record to explain the reasons behind this bill.

This is indeed landmark legislation which sets a precedent for cooperation and proactive agreement on both local and national levels. H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Stability Act of 1997, launches a forest health and economic stability

management plan for three of California’s national forests that I

believe will set an example for other consensus-based groups

around the nation.

This plan represents an entirely new approach to managing our

Federal forests. It was hammered out by a coalition of local environmentalists, local forest product industry representatives, and

local government officials who set aside decades of gridlock over

the environment to create a feasible, productive forest management

plan. This proposal is a breakthrough for those of us interested in

finding bipartisan and cooperative solutions to forest management

issues.

Perhaps for the first time, we have a local consensus group

bringing local solutions to Washington instead of Washingtonforced solutions on local communities. This proposal takes the best

science for forest management in the Sierra Nevada forest system

and implements it as a proactive, common-sense plan that will remove the source of out-of-control, catastrophic wildfires, namely,

over-dense vegetation and massive buildups of dead and dying

trees and will through this process use that vegetation to produce

cost-effective wood products, thus bolstering local economies.

This Congress has talked about establishing a bipartisan dialog.

We have talked about reaching across the aisle to find compromise

solutions to our nation’s most serious problems. This is our chance

to make it work.

This legislation is established by local grass roots compromise

and may very well help set the tone for the rest of the 105th Congress. This legislation demonstrates that sound forest health and

economic stability can coexist. The Quincy Library Group brings

the best of both sides of the environmental issue together and de5

livers a shot in the arm needed by not just our national forests, but

by the rest of the Nation as well.

I am excited about this legislation and I am committed to doing

everything I can to see that this authorizing legislation becomes a

reality. Madame Chair, as you consider changes proposed by the

Forest Service, I ask you to bear in mind the purpose of this legislation, to implement an existing forest plan based on the best available science as a priority pilot project on large enough scale to

prove that forest health and economic stability are not mutually exclusive. It is imperative that we keep our eyes fixed on this mark.

Thank you, Madame Chair and members.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Mr. Fazio is not here,

and so he will testify when he arrives.

Mr. HERGER. Madame Chair, he did indicate to me he was here

earlier. He indicated he did have another meeting, but that he was

going to attempt to return, but I do appreciate his very strong cooperation in working with us on this, and again, one more indication of the bipartisan coalition that we have among all sides to

make this process work.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If Mr. Fazio does return, we will make every

effort to have him testify.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. I would like to call on

Mr. Vento for any questions he might have.

Mr. VENTO. Madame Chair, I think we have a long witness list.

I guess we will have to get to the questions about cost and assurance of funding and what the ramifications are of the other parts

of the plan for watershed restoration and habitat protection and so

forth.

Under the one feature, I assume that the plan does include the

language on fire suppression, but that is the only aspect repeated

in the bill.

Mr. HERGER. I would really like to hold off any questions for the

experts who helped put it together.

Mr. VENTO. OK.

Mr. HERGER. We will be hearing from them, Mr. Vento, and they

could answer much better than I could since they were the ones

who actually put it together.

Mr. VENTO. Madame Chair, I think again I would be happy to

defer until further witnesses appear.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Madame Chair, and welcome, Mr.

Herger, to the hearing.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Just briefly one question. I won’t be able to

stay for the whole hearing because I have a budget working group

to meet with, but I wanted to make sure I was on record in full

support of the Quincy Library Group. In fact, I want to start a library group of my own in the Sierra National Forest, so I am looking at this with great excitement.

I want to state for the record, too, that I feel that the best tool

for enhancing the environment of Federal lands is the local solution

and the local talent providing a local solution.
6

Would you be willing to venture to guess, under the Quincy Library Group plan after it is implemented and it takes place in the

region, do you think that the environment will end up being more

enhanced and more healthy than it would be under the current

system right now?

Mr. HERGER. Again, the locals who worked on this, both environmentalists and the others will be able to answer this much better

than I, but I will state that the answer is definitely yes.

The most current science was used and it was used in such a

way that—and I might mention why it is so important that each

area have its own plan. Every area of our forests are very unique;

even within California they are unique, but for example, up in

Washington, there is much more rainfall as you well know, being

my colleague in California, than we have in California. We are

much more susceptible to forest fires in our area and to insect infestations than they are in other areas. The slope of the ground is

different wherever you are, so it really takes a plan that is unique

to that area to ensure that we have stream protection that we are

really looking at the entire ecosystem.

What is exciting is that we have done that in this area in parts

of three national forests, and we have done it in a way that will

supply the needed wood products for those that work in the wood

industry in that area, so it is really a win-win-win for us. The economy wins, the environment wins, the people who live there win,

and ultimately, our nation comes out the biggest winner.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I applaud your work on the bill

and am proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hill.

Mr. RICK HILL. I have no questions.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I would like to recognize with

unanimous consent, the ranking minority member, Mr. Hinchey,

for any opening comments or statements.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I do have

a brief opening statement that I would just like to read into the

record if I may.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Mr. HINCHEY. First of all, let me begin by welcoming you in your

new role as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest

Health, and let me tell you how much I look forward to working

with you. I believe that we will be able to accomplish a great deal

together. As the ranking minority member, I look forward to having this opportunity to work with you and other members of this

newly constituted Subcommittee.

I look at the legislation before us today with great interest. I

commend the Quincy Library Group for sitting down to work out

the differences that existed among its various members. I am familiar with a similar process that was used in the northern forest

lands study that I discussed with you, Madame Chairman, just last

week, as a matter of fact.

As national legislators, our responsibility extends far beyond a

specific geographic area. We have to look at not only what this legislation means for the three particular national forests but also, of
7

course, for the other Sierra Nevada national forests and the national forest system in its entirety as well.

While I support competing interests sitting down to work out

their differences, we must be very careful in this regard. We must

assure that the public interest is adequately represented in this

process. These are, after all, national forests, and all Americans

have a stake in their management. We must also be careful to look

at the possible precedent that could be set here.

I think it would be a dangerous path for Congress to legislate the

management plans for an individual national forest or group of forests, and in light of that, I think it is important that we determine

what in this bill can and should be implemented administratively

under existing law and therefore, what truly needs to be legislated.

I hope this hearing will be useful in addressing the strengths and

weaknesses of this legislation, and I look forward to the testimony

of our witnesses on this subject, and I thank you, Madame Chairman, for the opportunity to be here with you at this hearing and

to make the statement.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. I know we are a little bit out of order, but at this time, I would like to recognize Mr.

Fazio for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. VIC FAZIO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and members of

the Subcommittee. I apologize for not being able to be here at the

beginning. I do appreciate the chance to come before you this afternoon to support legislation intended to implement the Quincy Library Group forest management pilot program.

As you know, the Quincy Library Group is a diverse organization

established to take a creative, innovative, and most importantly,

consensus approach to protecting our forests. It brought together

the timber industry and the environmentalists as well as local officials to work out a way to enhance fire suppression as well as

maintain a sustainable amount of timber harvest.

The thinning approach that is being proposed in this legislation

whereby smaller diameter trees are harvested and fuel breaks are

created will serve both the environmental protection needs of forest

health as well as help the local economy dependent on timber harvesting. This project in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National

Forests could also demonstrate the Federal Government’s recognition of local problem-solving.

As we try to put this landmark agreement into legislative language, we need to foster the ongoing consensus process that made

this agreement possible. The Quincy Library Group is a unique example of how diverse interests can come together through compromise, overcome obstacles which traditionally prevent us from

reaching our mutual goals.

I want to stress that the Quincy Library Group’s efforts are

unique and that they are concentrated on a local concern and involve a local process. It is our obligation at the Federal level to preserve this spirit of cooperation and reflect the ideals of the Quincy

Library Group in their purest form.
8

I want to commend my colleague, Wally Herger, for his sincere

effort to translate the Library Group’s proposal into a bill. This is

not an easy task. As a co-sponsor of the bill, I support the concept

of this initial draft, but I do share the concern of many that improvements can and should be made. I urge the committee to respect the consensus of the Quincy Library Group to include

changes recommended by the U.S. Forest Service as well as other

changes which may be deemed necessary.

This is a fluid process. Just as the Quincy Group has withstood

other pressures in the past and has proved its endurance and ability to work through difficult problems, we need to take that same

approach. I look forward to working with Wally Herger, this committee, and Senator Feinstein in incorporating many of the changes

that will be proposed, I am sure, today and subsequent to this

hearing.

I understand that the committee has already been receptive to

adding the word ‘‘catastrophic’’ in front of ‘‘designated areas’’ as

well as adding the phrase ‘‘within the pilot project area.’’ This helps

to clarify when and where exceptions can be made to the restrictions on timber harvesting in protected areas.

I would hope that the committee would also be receptive to incorporating other changes such as directing compliance with existing

environmental laws, and the legislation should stay true to the library agreement which embraces the spirit of the California Spotted Owl report in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project recommendations.

Once again, taking a local agreement and putting it into a legislative statute is a challenge, and it takes time, but I believe we

have a solid foundation for this legislation. What we need is time,

time to work out differences, time to educate our colleagues on this

important bill, and time to uphold the true process through with

the Quincy Library Group that has worked to create this proposal.

It will produce a product that is worth the time, because it may

be a model for others to follow.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify with my colleague, Mr. Herger, and while I won’t be able to stay, I know that

this is an effort on the part of this committee to fine tune a concept

which I think we can all agree with.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Fazio. In order to get this

train back on track, I think that I will just ask my questions now,

and then we will open the panel for a second round of questions.

Let me ask you—oh, are you leaving?

Mr. FAZIO. I would be happy to stay if you have a question for

me.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have a question for you. This is a model that

many other groups may hope to follow, groups in all of our States,

and you are to be congratulated, both of you, for your efforts. Did

you recall finding it difficult, Mr. Fazio, to get to this point?

Mr. FAZIO. I think it is not really hard for Members of Congress

to get to this point. The difficulty is the people in the group itself

who have worked so hard through the years with the national forest, with the local community leaders.

People come at this from very different points of view. They have

really worked very hard and they continue to have to work hard
9

to see if they can take their concepts and put them in language

that we can put in the bill. I think they have come a long way, and

I think with Mr. Herger’s continued patience and forbearance and

the support of this committee, we can actually help confirm what

is a good process and a very healthy start.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I would like to ask Wally, how

long have you been involved in this process?

Mr. HERGER. We have been working on this for approximately

four years now, so it has been a long process of again, all the different sides getting together and the reason they called it the Quincy Library Group is they met in the very quaint, beautiful town of

Quincy, of a few hundred population up in the High Sierras of my

district. They met in this library for many, many weeks over about

a four-year period to finally come together and they went over

every bit of the area within these three national forests and finally

worked out a consensus. So this is a tremendous amount of work

done by a number of people with very diverse philosophies on the

environment that came together that are now very united on supporting this pilot program.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Herger, I need to narrow my questions

down with regard to the legislation. I want to ask you a two-part

question.

How long have you been working on the legislation? Have there

been many changes made to the draft legislation before introducing

it last year and this year?

Mr. HERGER. Specifically, the legislation was introduced for the

first time last year. We were working with the Administration and

I am looking forward to having them appear before you here in a

few minutes, but we had indications—as a matter of fact, I am interested in Mr. Lyons who is here today, who is one of our top leaders with the Administration, indicated back last September when

we were going over it with him that he felt that this was something he could support. He has actually been to the area, and I

want to thank him for that, but somehow, we keep going on month

after month, and it is always tomorrow we are going to be with

you, we are almost there. I am very concerned on how I hope this

isn’t going to be a pattern that we will see too long into the future.

Certainly, we want to work with them. We have worked with them

in every way we can, but again, I would just hope that the Administration is more serious than they have indicated over the last five

months in coming up with a final line of this is what we want to

support than what they have in the last five months.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. When did you first ask the Forest Service to

provide input on your bill?

Mr. HERGER. The Forest Service was actually working with us at

least through part of the Quincy Library Group, and again, I would

rather have them describe it, but the Forest Service has certainly

been around this process from the beginning in one way or another.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I would like to recognize Mr. Hinchey now for questions.

Mr. HINCHEY. I just perhaps have one question, and that is with

regard to the enumerated purposes of the bill. They include four,

as I understand it, one of which is that the Forest Service may not
10

limit other multiple-use activities in order to carry out the terms

of the pilot project. Is that accurate?

Mr. HERGER. I believe that is accurate.

Mr. HINCHEY. Do you see any potential for conflict here? If you

are attempting to carry out the provisions of this bill which may

to some extent at least be very admirable and may bring about favorable consequences, if you are unable to limit other activities in

order to accomplish that objective, it seems to me that you might

run into some conflicts here, because that seems to place within the

bill a kind of inflexibility that might be less than helpful in achieving your objective.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Hinchey, I would like to describe to you a much

greater problem than the one you are posing to me now. Last

year——

Mr. HINCHEY. There may be much greater problems, but at the

moment, I am concerned about this one.

Mr. HERGER. Let me address this one, if I could. Let me address

it in the best way that I can. Last year, we had the worst forest

fires in California in modern history, 860,000 acre of forest destroyed by catastrophic forest fires. Just a couple years before, we

had the second worst forest fire season where we had over 550,000

acres of forest. Now, these are forests that are no longer forests.

In these forests, there is no longer the California Spotted Owl,

there is no longer Northern Spotted Owl. There isn’t anything in

these areas.

In addition to that, in just the area I represent, 32 mills—the

32nd closed about three months ago, so we are seeing our environment destroyed. Now, this is directly due in my opinion to Federal

direction and Federal policy here in Washington that does not work

in our area, directly responsible to that.

We have forests that are too dense, that are 82-percent denser

by Forest Service records than they were in 1928. We are seeing—

where these forest fires are, we are seeing soil erosion, which has

contributed in the flooding that we have where our stream beds are

filled and which is destroying habitat.

In essence, Mr. Hinchey, we have a system that is broke. We

have a system that is not working at all, so we were going to try

something brand new. I know this unique here in Washington. This

may come as a major surprise to many of my colleagues, but we

thought maybe if we got everyone together locally who lived there,

most of which were born and raised there, who, believe it or not,

care about this environment perhaps more than you do because

they live there, that maybe they could come up with a solution that

for a change would work. So this is not really my solution. This is

not really my legislation. This is a group, and several are nationally recognized environmentalists who worked on this as well as

everybody with a plan, and again, I would rather have you ask

them these questions. They can much better give you answers than

I, because they are really the ones who wrote this legislation.

Mr. HINCHEY. I appreciate the circumstances which give rise to

this initiative, and——

Mr. HERGER. I would like to state—excuse me. Finish.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Herger.

Mr. HINCHEY. Go ahead.
11

Mr. HERGER. When you finish, I have another comment, but we

see something taking place now. I am hearing alluded to in your

statements and Mr. Vento’s statements a little bit in the final

statements—well, anyway, I hear it when I talk to the head of the

Forest Service here, those who are making the decisions anyway

here in Washington, is that we have a group within the environmental community that are based here in Washington, not out in

the district, because those are the ones I am representing, but the

ones that are here in Washington that for many decades are making a living by the fact that the system isn’t working, and I am

very concerned when I see all of this. Well, manana, we are going

to come up with an answer, you know, it is almost right but not

quite. When I hear this from Mr. Lyons and the Administration,

where we fail to see action being taken but yet they are well-meaning. They want to help us, but somehow, it is not quite right.

Again, this really concerns me that we see these monkey wrenches

being thrown in the system by people 3,000 miles away, most of

which have never been to our area or really lack the concern that

we have.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hinchey.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Herger, I appreciate your response even

though it doesn’t answer my question or begin to. Nevertheless,

you pointed me in a direction from which I might be able to obtain

the answer, and for that, sir, I am grateful.

Mr. HERGER. As a matter of fact, I would like to invite you to

come out to our district.

Mr. HINCHEY. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. HERGER. Good.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, I would like to recognize Mr. Hill

again, if you have any other questions.

Mr. RICK HILL. Madame Chairman, I don’t have any questions.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. I think I will wait for others to try to give us the

answers.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If Mr. Herger would like to join the other

members on the dais and participate in this hearing, I would like

that very much.

Mr. HERGER. I appreciate that, Madame Chair.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to do so. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Before we continue, I would like to explain

that I intend to place all the witnesses under oath, and for the

record, I have conferred with Mr. Hinchey on this practice and we

have agreed to put all outside witnesses under oath that appear before this committee.

This is a formality of the committee that is meant to assure open

and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony given by

witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses were informed of this before appearing here today. They have each been provided a copy of

the committee rules in addition.

I would like to explain the lights that are on the witness table.

Each witness is given five minutes to testify. The lights are simply
12

there to act as traffic lights. Green lights mean go, yellow lights

mean your time is just about up, and red lights mean stop.

I appreciate your cooperation, and be assured that your entire

written testimony will be made a part of the hearing record today.

I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses, James

Lyons, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment for

the Department of Agriculture; accompanied by Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, from the Forest Service in San Francisco, California; Kent Connaughton, Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest, in Susanville, California; and Mark Madrid, Forest Supervisor,

Plumas National Forest, in Quincy, California.

Before we get started, if you will rise and raise your right arms.

Do you solemnly swear and affirm under the penalty of perjury

that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth, so help you God?

Thank you very much, and I would like to recognize our first witness, Mr. James Lyons, our Under Secretary of Natural Resources

and Environment. Mr. Lyons, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT; U.S.D.A; ACCOMPANIED BY LYNN SPRAGUE, REGIONAL FORESTER, U.S.D.A.

FOREST SERVICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; KENT

CONNAUGHTON, FOREST SUPERVISOR, LASSEN NATIONAL

FOREST, U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE, SUSANVILLE, CALIFORNIA; AND MARK MADRID, FOREST SUPERVISOR, PLUMAS

NATIONAL FOREST, U.S.D.A., QUINCY, CALIFORNIA

Mr. LYONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here today, and also to be honored to be the first to appear before

you in your maiden voyage as chairperson of this committee, and

I appreciate that opportunity. Mr. Hinchey, it is an opportunity as

well for me to have a chance to visit with you. It is nice to see another easterner involved in setting forest policy nationwide, and I

know your area very well. I grew up fishing there.

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to offer our

views on H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and

Economic Stability Act, and as you have already noted, Regional

Forester Lynn Sprague, Supervisor Mark Madrid of the Plumas

National Forest, Kent Connaughton from the Lassen National Forest, as well as Jody Cook, who is the Deputy Forest Supervisor of

the Plumas are with me today, and we will be pleased to answer

any questions the Subcommittee may have.

The Department of Agriculture supports the goals of H.R. 858,

and we certainly applaud the work of Congressman Herger, Congressman Fazio, and the Quincy Library Group and its willingness

to enter into a constructive dialog to make this bill workable. We

believe we are very close to that goal.

Just last week, Forest Service officials including Mr. Madrid and

Ms. Cook, met with representatives of Mr. Herger’s office as well

as members of the Quincy Library Group to discuss the bill. We

think the discussions were very constructive and substantial

progress was made; however, we feel we need just a little more

time to fully consider the issues raised before the Administration

can fully endorse the bill. I certainly hope, Madam Chairman, that
13

we can do so within the timetable that you have set out for consideration of the bill.

As you know, the world is a much more complex place today than

it was even a few decades ago, and certainly nowhere is that complexity more evident than in the controversies and the complexities

associated with management of the nation’s national forests. Yet I

would suggest to you, Madam Chairman, that the prescription for

management of these forests which was laid down 90 years ago by

the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, is really rather

simple, and if I may, I would like to quote to you from what was

then the Forest Service manual. It was called the Use Book in

1907, and it was all of a quarter-inch thick. I daresay the Forest

Service manual today would fill up this table.

This is what Gifford Pinchot said about management of the national forests, and this section of the Use Book was entitled ‘‘Management by the People.’’ He said, ‘‘National forests are made for

and owned by the people. They should also be managed by the people. They are made not to give the officers in charge of them a

chance to work out theories, but to give the people who use them

and those who are affected by their use a chance to work out their

own best profit. This means that if national forests are going to accomplish anything worthwhile, the people must know all about

them and must take a very active part in their management. The

officers are paid by the people to act as their agents and to see that

all the resources of the forests are used in the best interest of everyone concerned. What the people as a whole want will be done.

To do it, it is necessary that the people carefully consider and

plainly state just what they want and then take a very active part

in seeing that they get it.’’

Mr. Pinchot went on to say, ‘‘There are a great many interests

on the national forests which sometimes conflict a little.’’ That

showed his foresight. ‘‘They must all be made to fit into one another so that the machine runs smoothly as a whole. It is often necessary for one man,’’ or one woman, I would suggest, ‘‘to give way

a little here, another a little there. But by giving way a little at

present, they both profit a great deal in the end.’’

I think those were prophetic words, Madam Chairman, and I

think in those few words, Gifford Pinchot captured the essence of

what the Quincy Library Group is all about, and Secretary Glickman and I believe that the Quincy Library Group effort is worthy

of our continued support.

Before turning to the specifics of the bill, I would like to briefly

review some of the findings of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project

report, or the SNEP report, because I think it amplifies what Congressman Herger said about the scientific soundness and the foundation for what is proposed by the Quincy Library Group.

SNEP was developed by a team of independent scientists tasked

by Congress with preparing a scientific review of the entire Sierra

Nevada ecosystem. Their final report was transmitted to the Congress in June, 1996, and in fact, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Miller, was a key proponent of that legislation.

The SNEP report describes a number of approaches to reducing

the susceptibility of the Sierra Nevada range to catastrophic fire.

These include substantially reducing the potential for large, high14

severity wildfires in both wildlands in what we call the wildlandurban interface and restoring historic ecosystem functions of frequent low and moderate-severity fire. This can be accomplished by

establishing what are known as defensible fuel profile zones characterized by relatively large trees with considerable diversity in

ages, sizes, and distribution.

The key feature would be the general openness and discontinuity

of crown fuels within those forest stands so as to avoid the likelihood that high intensity fires might run through the crown. Once

these zones have been established, a program of prescribed fire

could then be introduced to restore the historic fire regime within

those ecosystems.

The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act would direct the Secretary to conduct a pilot program on

designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and part of the Tahoe National Forests, in essence, to assess the effectiveness of certain resource management activities. The activities include construction of

a strategic system of defensible fuel breaks, implementation on an

acreage rather than on a volume basis of uneven-aged forest management prescriptions, and group selection of individual tree harvest to promote development of that all-age canopy that I talked

about.

This proposal in effect would implement key aspects of the SNEP

report as I just described. We see substantial merit in testing these

strategies, and we also believe that dialog can serve as a model for

communities to use in seeking a more constructive solution to resource management conflicts in addressing local concerns without

the necessity of site-specific legislation in the future.

Although much of this bill could be implemented administratively, we believe there is merit in legislating the Quincy Library

Group pilot effort. However, I would want to state that we hope

that this legislation is not viewed as a template for legislating solutions for specific forest management problems on a site-by-site

basis.

Upon a first reading of the bill, we did have a number of concerns, and I think we have done a lot of work with the assistance

of Mr. Herger’s office and members of the Quincy Library Group

to address those. We continue to work on language to make clear

that all existing laws must apply to the implementation of this experiment, and that the CASPO guidelines and the information included in the SNEP report should serve as a template to ensure

that we meet all the standards that are laid out in those documents.

Additionally, we believe that the pilot program should be subjected to a science-based evaluation at the midpoint and conclusion

of the program. This evaluation should help determine if the assumptions underlying the program activities are valid and guide

changes for management as new information is generated. In short,

this whole project should be guided by what we call adaptive management as a basic philosophy of doing business.

We have remaining concerns with the funding provisions in the

bill. We intend to work with QLG and others to resolve these concerns. We have proposed several funding sources in the fiscal year

’98 budget that if enacted, could increase overall the resources we
15

need to implement projects such as the Quincy Library Group effort as well as similar work in other national forests in Idaho and

other parts of the country.

I won’t go into the specific details of our budget proposals, but

I would encourage you, Madam Chairman, to take a look at those.

I would emphasize though that we believe without additional resources for the types of activities the Quincy Library Group prescribes, the allocation within a fixed overall budget is an inevitable

requirement. However, we must not put ourselves in a position of

robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, by mandating reductions in

programs like recreation, fish and wildlife, and other resource protection activities.

We will seek efficiencies in how we spend our limited resources,

and that might provide us additional resources to implement some

of the projects called for in this legislation. However, ultimately,

the Congress must help us make the investment that is necessary

to achieve many of the goals and objectives that are laid out in this

program and in our overall forest health goals.

Let me summarize by saying that in the forest conference that

the President convened in Portland in April, 1983, he challenged

natural resource-dependent communities to develop collaborative

and locally based solutions to controversies around public land

management. The Quincy Library Group was up to the challenge,

and in fact, they have been working for some time prior to the forest conference to engage in such a dialog to help improve and enhance the health of the forests that affected their communities, to

strengthen the community, and perhaps most importantly, to demonstrate that these forests can be managed in a way that satisfies

the needs of broad cross-sections of forest users.

For these reasons, the Administration is committed to perfecting

the bill, and I would offer, Madam Chairman, that if it would assist, I am willing to offer myself to work personally in bringing together the parties that have many concerns with the legislation to

see if we could not in fact achieve consensus and move forward

with the legislation.

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before

you today and look froward to addressing your questions.

[Statement of James Lyons may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to thank you, Secretary Lyons, for your

testimony and we will proceed on to the questions now. I do want

to remind the members of the committee that Rule 3[c] imposes a

five-minute limit on questions, and the Chairman will now recognize the minority member, Mr. Hinchey.

Mr. HINCHEY. I’m not going to issue a statement so——

Mr. VENTO. You’ll have the opportunity to ask questions.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is right, so you can ask any one of them

for—these are all forest supervisors, so you can ask any one of

them questions.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, and

thank you, Mr. Lyons, for your testimony.

I note in your testimony you congratulate the Quincy Library

Group for their attempt in coming together and working out this

particular problem, and as Mr. Herger said in his statement a few

moments ago, I think that that is a laudatory thing at the local
16

level to come together and deal with problems that affect them locally, even when those problems affect national resources. To a certain extent, the point can be made that even though it is a national

resource, people who are located right in that community are the

ones who are most directly affected by it to one extent or another.

In this particular case, as I understand it and correct me if I am

mistaken, the Quincy Library Group consists of people exclusively

from the local community, foresters, forest workers, forestry companies, and a local county official, I think those were the three people, the three groups that initiated the project, and there may be

others involved.

To what extent has the Forest Service or other national interest

been involved in the negotiations between the various parties and

to what extent have national interests been represented in the formulation of this particular legislation?

Mr. LYONS. Mr. Hinchey, it would probably be best for me to

allow members of the group to characterize the process that they

went through, and they will certainly have an opportunity to speak

in the later panel.

My understanding through my experience in working with the

group is that it does represent a broad cross-section of the community. It involves representatives from the forest products industry;

local county supervisor Bill Coates; as well as local environmental

activists who have been very much a part of the process, Linda

Bloom and Michael Jackson, among others.

It is, I think, a broad group representative of a very diverse community with diverse interests and concerns with regard to the uses

of the national forest. It is true that it is the local community, and

I think frankly that solutions to these issues more often than not

are successful if they are generated locally.

That does not diminish the importance of representing that these

are national forests and national assets and you and I from the

East Coast have as much value in and interest in, and opportunity

to have say in the process as anyone else might.

I think they have done a fairly effective job of attempting to come

to grips with some very, very difficult and divisive issues and on

that basis warrant our additional support. I think in the follow-up

dialog we have in this legislation, others from outside the community who would like to have an opportunity to have additional

input, and I think that opportunity needs to be provided, and that

is why I offered my services in securing that.

Mr. HINCHEY. I take it from your answer then that as far as you

know, there really was no involvement of the Forest Service or

other national interests in the formulation of the legislation.

Mr. LYONS. Initially, the Forest Service was not involved; however, I think over time, the Forest Service has been actively involved, and in fact, just last year, additional resources were allocated to the forests that are affected by this legislation to engage

on an experimental basis some of the practices that are called for

that would help to reduce fuel loading and to help move toward the

kind of foresting conditions called for in the Quincy Library Group

effort.

So our involvement has progressed over time, and as I also indicated in my testimony, just last week, Mark Madrid and Jody Cook
17

were part of a dialog with members of the Quincy Library Group

and a representative of Mr. Herger’s office to begin to discuss some

of the issues that have come up, so we have had increasing involvement over time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Does the Forest Service take a position on the legislation at this point or are you still sort of watching it and looking

at it?

Mr. LYONS. It is the position that I stated at the outset. We think

we have made considerable progress and we think we are close to

achieving legislation that we can support, but there is some more

work to be done, and we would like to engage in that dialog and

bring this to closure.

Mr. HINCHEY. The bill speaks primarily if not exclusively to logging and fuel management. It doesn’t seem to address the overall

ecological system.

It has been characterized as a local initiative on a local forest,

but the fact of the matter is, as I understand it, it involves about

2,500,000 acres, two and a half national forests. The initiative here

is one that would establish a broad ranging and important precedent if it were adopted. This is a lot more than a local activity affecting a local region, and furthermore, it seems only to address

one particular aspect of the problems of an ecological system. It

doesn’t deal with problems of endangered species, it doesn’t deal

with ecosystem management, it doesn’t deal with watershed, it

doesn’t deal with a whole host of very important issues. It focuses

almost exclusively on timber harvest and fuels management. Does

that represent in your mind a deficiency?

Mr. LYONS. Well, there are two points I would make. I think this

bill does set a precedent, an important precedent, and that is that

local, diverse, and oftentimes conflicting interests can come together to work out their differences, and I think that is something

to be applauded.

I don’t support the precedent of legislating specific solutions to

specific problems, but I see this as a valuable pilot effort from

which we can learn and then I hope implement administratively

some of the remedies that come of this effort.

This does apply to a broad scale, about 2,400,000 acres in concept, but the Quincy Library Group concept is about more than addressing fuel loads and thinning and salvage work. It involves the

set-aside of the environmentally important areas for protecting

threatened and endangered species. It involves watershed restoration work and a whole host of other things that are part of the

larger Quincy Library Group proposal which is——

Mr. HINCHEY. But none of those issues are addressed in the legislation.

Mr. LYONS. I think what I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that

it is very difficult to translate into legislation how one implements

this entire package and proposal. Again, I would suggest that in a

subsequent panel, Tom or Michael or Bill might address in a broader context what is there.

I would also tell you that we continue to move forward with our

efforts to do the watershed restoration work that is necessary.

In implementing this proposal consistent with the CASPO guidelines which are guidelines to protect the California Spotted Owl
18

and the principles and concepts in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

Report, we are also adopting a position of staying out of many

areas that previously might have been considered for timber harvest but have been deemed too sensitive, so in that context, we are

also adopting some of those more environmentally oriented principles that I think you are alluding to are missing here.

I think all in all, it represents a fair attempt to try and develop

a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy, and for that reason, we see it as a valuable effort to implement.

Mr. HINCHEY. Do you think this bill is a fair attempt at addressing a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy?

Mr. LYONS. I think this bill would authorize us to adopt principles incorporated in the Quincy Library Group strategy consistent

with CASPO, the forest plans, and SNEP, which in their larger

context represent rather effective ecosystem management strategy

for the Sierra Nevadas.

Mr. HINCHEY. I would be interested in carrying out this discussion a little bit further, because I would like to see where you find

that in the legislation, Mr. Lyons.

Mr. LYONS. Well, the legislation specifically refers to implementation of the Quincy Library Group project, and I think if you read

that document, you will see that it is much more than simply salvage and thinning.

Mr. HINCHEY. Which document are you talking about?

Mr. LYONS. The Quincy Library Group report, and I think Congressman Herger——

Mr. HINCHEY. But we are talking about the bill here before us

now, aren’t we? The report——

Mr. LYONS. The bill referenced——

Mr. HINCHEY. [continuing]—isn’t going to be implemented. This

is legislation which the Congress is being asked to implement.

Mr. LYONS. Well, the bill——

Mr. HINCHEY. The report has nothing to do with that.

Mr. LYONS. No, it does, sir. The bill references the report and authorizes its implementation basically and that is the manner in

which I have responded to the question.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chairman would remind Mr. Hinchey and

Mr. Lyons, you both ran red lights, so I need to try to keep things

a little bit on time.

Mr. LYONS. I will run one more red light, then I will be quiet.

The bill specifically states that the Secretary of Agriculture, acting

through the Forest Service, shall conduct a pilot project on Federal

lands described in paragraph 2, to implement and demonstrate the

effectiveness of the resource management activities described in

subsection [d] as recommended in the Quincy Library Group proposal of 1993.

It references the report and I think it highlights some of the specific management activities that are called for in that report, but

we certainly see this as a project that is implemented——

Mr. HINCHEY. But Mr. Lyons, those management activities specifically delineated are forestry and fuels management. They are

the only ones stipulated in the legislation.

Mr. LYONS. They will be implemented in the larger context of the

forest plan within which we are operating.
19

Mr. HINCHEY. That will be interesting to see.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. Mr. Hill, do you have

any questions?

Mr. RICK HILL. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I would just comment to you that it seems to me that we ought to promote more

collaborative process rather than more conflict in terms of developing forest management plans, and so I may disagree with my colleague’s earlier comments.

Let me just ask you, you say in your testimony this shouldn’t be

a template for the future. Do you mean with regard to the collaborative process or do you mean with regard to the drafting of legislation to implement that process?

Mr. LYONS. I mean with regard to legislation. I don’t think we

want to be in a position where we have to legislate solutions to

every problem we have on the ground. We ought to be better than

that.

Mr. RICK HILL. I would just comment that there is a sense, I

think at least in Montana, that the process that we now use, while

it provides for public comment, it doesn’t provide for public input.

So the consequence of that is that while the public may be allowed

to express itself, but that expression isn’t necessarily incorporated

into any final resolution, and this process, it appears to me, is one

that allowed public participation to result in actually the development of a plan. It seems to me that that is good. Would you agree

or disagree with that?

Mr. LYONS. I would agree, Mr. Hill. In fact, I think we have

made great strides in the Forest Service in enhancing our ability

to engage the public in a dialog over the use of their forests, but

we have a ways to go. Certainly, what we have learned is the earlier the opportunity, the more open the process, and the greater the

likelihood then that the community will become engaged and will

become a part of the process of devising solutions that make good

sense, make good sense for the communities, and with the input of

the Forest Service and other resource management professionals

make good sense from an ecological and biological standpoint as

well.

Mr. RICK HILL. In this instance, this process was always an open

process; there was public scrutiny of the process. Is that how this

came about?

Mr. LYONS. Again, I think I would rather defer to the people who

engaged in the process within the Quincy Library Group and they

can better, I think, characterize how they went about developing

consensus over time.

Mr. RICK HILL. Fair enough. Let us talk about the cost of implementing the program. In your testimony, you suggested that the

Secretary is prepared to allocate the resources.

Have you done an evaluation of what the cost of the implementation of this will be in contrast with what the cost would be under

the earlier forest management plan?

Mr. LYONS. We do have some estimates, and if I could, I would

defer to Mr. Connaughton or Mr. Madrid to give you those specifics.

Mr. RICK HILL. That is fine.
20

Mr. MADRID. The costs that we estimated in the bill to implement that is really no different than our day-to-day costs for doing

business. Really what the bill does is it directs to more concentrated efforts on certain types of activities across the landscape,

but in reality, the costs of doing these types of activities would be

no different than our day-to-day activities.

Mr. RICK HILL. So we are not looking at any additional costs?

Mr. MADRID. Not in terms of actual costs to work on the ground.

Costs may be in terms of what is available for us to do the work,

so with the change in budgets and some other things, there would

be some additional need for funding to achieve that level of activity.

The level of activity doesn’t just include harvest activities or fuel

treatment. As part of the last couple of years of things that the Administration has done in support of this effort, we have dealt with

watershed restoration. We have a long-term monitoring plan now

that we are looking at to deal with this pilot program as well as

looking at some different things of where we need to be in our land

management process.

Now, in the Plumas, we have initiated the review process to find

out and see where we need to go in terms of potential amendment

or revision to our forest plan, so there is more to that than just

dealing with actual fuel treatment on the ground whether it be by

harvest activity, prescribed fire or reforestation as the combination

of all the different activities.

But really, the day-to-day work that we do and the costs would

be the same to implement this. It is just a difference in the magnitude of the effort we would need to undertake that way, so it is

not any more expensive than any of the other work we do every

day.

Mr. RICK HILL. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lyons.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Herger, I would like

to recognize you for five minutes for questioning.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, I want to

thank our Forest Service for our forest supervisors from two of our

forests for being out here. Lynn Sprague, I want to thank you for

all the help and support that you have given us, and Mr. Lyons,

I do want to thank you for being here, and I want to thank you

for working with us.

I was just going over some of my notes here. Evidently, since we

have been working, just the two of us here, and I want to thank

you for your expression of strong support from the beginning of this

process, certainly from the time we introduced the legislation last

summer, our individual work at that time, you mentioned that

there were a few areas you wanted to look at, but you felt that you

would be able to—if I am misrepresenting you, I am sure you will

tell me.

Mr. LYONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HERGER. It seemed to me last September that it looked like

you were—I think your comment was that you were going to be

sending me a letter very soon in support. We were very close, and

you got back to us I don’t know how many different times, but we

went back and forth, and I believe there is somewhere between 12
21

and 25 changes that we have already made in that original legislation that we introduced last summer that were because of your recommendations that were fine-tuning this legislation. I feel because

of it, it is far better legislation today than it was when we originally introduced it last year because of again, yours and the Forest

Service’s input on this.

I just want to make sure the record is clear. It is not like we are

just now starting on this process. We have been working with it for

some time, working in conjunction with you, so I guess we get back

to the point. The concern that we have in Quincy and these communities in these three national forests as we saw the Cottonwood

fire a few years ago where the town of Loyalton was threatened to

be burned three different times, this is a serious situation. We have

nothing left in an area that we live in if we don’t move immediately.

We had hoped originally that the Forest Service would be able

to implement this and do it administratively, and I have heard you

in our hearing and up in Oregon here, I don’t know, three weeks,

a month ago or so, your indication that you would like to see much

of this done administratively. I believe that was a comment you

made at that time, and I agree with you, but in these last few

years, this has not been the case. We have not been able to get this

program, and I would like to make a comment, too, on the record

of some questions, some good questions that Mr. Hinchey had, and

that was, are we just taking one aspect—are we only dealing with

the fire area and are we not dealing—why are we not dealing with

the entire ecosystem, and the fact is, the Quincy Library plan does

deal with the entire ecosystem. All we are trying to do is implement one part of it that was done in context of everything.

Just with that, I guess I get back to the point, please forgive me,

Jim, for being a little frustrated, but starting last September, comments were, gee, maybe next week, we are going to have this letter, or gee, make this change. About 12 or 25 changes later, your

comment is almost precisely the same today as it was last September. Tomorrow, I think we are close but not quite there.

I am sure that maybe it is a misperception, but it almost seems

like the goal post keeps moving further and further back as we get

closer to it, and how much more time do we need?

Mr. LYONS. Well, Mr. Herger, let me respond by saying how

much I appreciate your efforts to work with us——

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. LYONS. [continuing]—to try and perfect and refine some

things. I think what is happening now with regard to the legislation is as it moves forward and as it is clear that there is an intent

to proceed that others who have felt that they have not had an opportunity to have input, others, I think, as Mr. Hinchey alluded to,

seek an opportunity to have an opportunity to convey their concerns and to see if in fact they are real and need to be addressed

substantively or whether or not they can be addressed in some

other way.

That is the process that we engage in here in developing legislation, so I would suggest to you that from the standpoint of our interest within the Administration and we have come a long way, I

think legitimately, others have raised some concerns, and I think
22

we owe them the time to sit down and explain what we understand

the bill to do. I think the dialog we had last week between Mark

and Jody and your staff and members of the Quincy Library Group

was most instructive in gaining an understanding of how this

would be implemented and what the ramifications would be, and

that led to further refinements.

I think through that process, I hope we can bring people along

to the point where there is general support. It would be ridiculous

at this point in time to be left to fight over words when what we

really need is action on the ground, and I would like to get us

there.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I might

mention just in the last three years while we have been working

with this, and I do see the red light, and I will close with this, but

while we have been working to deal with this, probably almost

175,000,000 acres of forest land have been completely burned and

devastated just in my State of California. I might mention that this

is 175,000,000 acres where we have destroyed the habitat. We have

destroyed habitat for the Spotted Owl, and we have virtually destroyed our stream purity, everything else that goes with that, so

I would hope we don’t continue talking too much longer, because

as we do, we are losing a priceless resource that not only are we

devastated by, those of us who live in these communities, but a national resource that our entire nation is losing. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I would like to just

ask a little bit about the framework of the bill, Secretary Lyons.

As I understand it, this bill will set in place legislation for the

management of two and a half national forests. It will set in place

a plan and then as the plan is implemented, it must fall under the

National Forest Management Act and all applicable laws.

There are several, which include the ESA and the Clean Air Act

and the Clean Water Act, and so I don’t see any way that we can

reason that this legislation would not impose requirements under

those environmental laws, including NEPA, right? Is that correct

as you understand it?

Mr. LYONS. As you phrased the question, I am not sure quite

how to answer except to say that our understanding is that any activities implemented would have to be done so in a manner that

is consistent with NEPA, NFMA, CASPO guidelines, et cetera, so

that would maintain a consistent framework, so I guess we agree,

yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Good. I also wanted to ask you, Mr. Lyons—

Mr. Sprague, it is good to see you again. I saw you about a year

ago.

Let me ask you this. When we commonly and typically refer to

resource management or timber management, when we talk about

resource management, I think Mr. Hinchey’s question needs to be

answered. Is it strictly timber and fuel load or is it management

for wildlife and watershed management or what?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Much of the project’s activities envisioned under

the bill under the Quincy Library Group Report of 1993 is focused

on forest health, at getting us to a state with that 250,000,000

acres that we have reduced the fire risk and the fuel loading such
23

that we can carry out the rest of our ecosystem management responsibilities.

The point is, right now we have, as Congressman Herger pointed

out, serious fire risk and forest health conditions particularly on

the east side of those forests, and that is what those projects are

focused on primarily. It doesn’t take anything away from the rest

of the multiple-use and ecosystem responsibilities that these supervisors have under their forest plans.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Sprague, tell me, how serious today is the

fire situation in the Sierras?

Mr. SPRAGUE. It isn’t real serious today but——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Projecting to June, July, and August.

Mr. SPRAGUE. It is a continuing problem. We have had 100 years

or thereabouts of fire exclusion from our good fire control practices

over that period of time, doing what at the time we thought was

the right thing, what was the best science of the day.

We now realize that we were overly aggressive in that activity,

and we have what has built up over nearly a century of time that

we can’t deal with overnight. We have a continuing problem, and

will have for a number of years to get these forest health issues

under control, get the understory removal taken care of, getting the

stands thinned out, so that we have vigorous stands that withstand

both fire and insect and disease and others.

Mr. LYONS. Madam Chairman, if I could answer that same question, in the context of the question that Mr. Hinchey asked of me

earlier, the bill does of course focus on certain management prescriptions that are a priority. They are a priority for the reasons

that Lynn just described, the necessity of reducing wildfire risk in

ecosystems in which fire has been excluded for long periods of time.

But rather than take my word or the Quincy Library Group’s

word for it, if I could, I would just want to quickly read you something out of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Report.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. LYONS. This is a report that was chartered, if you will, as

a result of legislation that originated in this committee, and the

legislation, of course, was authored by former Chief of Staff Leon

Panetta as well as former Chairman Miller, and I had a little hand

in drafting the legislation, so it is near and dear to my heart, too.

I think everyone agrees that this is kind of the state-of-the-art

science in terms of the Sierra Nevadas and a very valuable contribution to our management efforts. But here is what the document says with regard to the role of fire as it pertains to other resources, wildlife, water quality, et cetera.

It says, ‘‘There is strong evidence that fire once was a major ecological process in the Sierra Nevada with profound influences on

many if not most Sierran ecosystems. The success of fire suppression has altered and will continue to alter Sierran ecosystems with

various consequences in regard to ecological function, new

transcycling, forest structural development, biodiversity, hydrology,

water quality. Many of the consequences probably have not yet

been described. Regardless of what combinations of strategies are

ultimately used, only wide-scale extensive landscape treatments,

fuel treatments, which would be thinning, some salvage work and
24

prescribed fire can approach the level of influence that fire once

had on the Sierran environment.’’

It goes on to say that, ‘‘Ideally, work on all goals should progress

concurrently,’’ and the report lays out some specific goals. It says

the highest priority goals should be goals one, three, and four. Goal

one is simply substantially reduce the potential for large, high-severity wildfires in the Sierra Nevada in both wildlands and the

wildland/urban intermix, and that comes about from the kind of

fuel loading treatments that are called for in the context of the

Quincy Library Group report.

So these activities, while they are highlighted in this bill, are

done so because they have such a critical impact on the future

health and vitality of all the resources within the Sierra Nevada

ecosystem. We shouldn’t lose sight of that.

Mr. SPRAGUE. One other quick comment on that, too, is that the

bill as drafted would step up the pace with which we do this work

on these two or three national forests, and I think the value there

is from a forest management standpoint, is that we get a larger

amount of work done so that we can begin monitoring and evaluating what we have accomplished so that we can learn if these

practices are what we really need to be doing across the whole Sierra Nevada ecosystem.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just want to ask the members here if they

would like to open this up for a second round of questions.

Mr. Hinchey, did you have further questions?

Mr. HINCHEY. I suppose that Mr. Lyons and I could go on and

on indefinitely, but I just want to make the point in response to

what you just said and which I do not contest at all which is obviously the case in the report that you read, but the bill doesn’t talk

about the use of fire as a management tool. The only thing it mentions is defensible fire breaks; that is the only thing it mentions as

a tool to deal with the problem of potential fire in the forests.

Unquestionably, since we have prevented fire from occurring as

it once naturally did, the ecosystem has changed, but the bill

doesn’t really deal with that. It doesn’t mention that we might use

controlled fire as a management tool. It only mentions defensible

fire breaks.

So while what you say is true, the import of what you are trying

to convey, I think, is not quite there.

Mr. LYONS. I recognize your concerns, Congressman, and I suggest that is one area in which we could clarify what the intended

purposes are. I think the issue with regard to reducing fuels is one

where we can’t introduce prescribed fire in many of the areas in

the Sierras because the fuel loads are so high, it will generate

crown fires, and that is not what we seek to achieve.

Certainly, that is an area where clarification could be provided.

Mr. HINCHEY. That just brings me back to my original point, Mr.

Lyons, and that is that if you are going to manage this resource

in a way that is different from the way that it has been managed

in the past, or at least, if you are going to set up a management

structure that is different from that which has existed in the past,

and I think that maybe that is a good idea; it may be a good idea

to do that, but if you are going to do it, you ought to do it comprehensively, and you ought to be managing it with regard to over25

all concern for the entire ecological system and all of those species

which depend upon it. It ought not to be done exclusively as the

bill seems to indicate it would be done in this particular case for

timber and for fuels management.

Mr. LYONS. We share the same goals and objectives. I think perhaps we just need to clarify the language in our purposes so it is

clear that we are going to manage in an ecosystem context to

achieve that goal.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. Herger.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Madame Chair, and I want to thank

Mr. Hinchey for that very good point. I might mention that the

original plan, the whole plan and we wish we could incorporate all

of it, does do precisely what you are recommending, but the concern was, we would have a tough enough job just getting this one

little piece through Congress rather than trying to get the whole

program.

But I think what is important is that what we are doing was

done, and again, we will hear more from our Quincy Library Group

here in a few minutes, but all of this was done within the context

of managing for the entire ecosystem, so this was not done by itself

without considering that, and hopefully, that will come out later.

But I think that is a point that is absolutely crucial in anything

we do today is exactly what you are mentioning.

I would like Lynn Sprague, our regional forester, if I could ask

you a question. Many of our national interest groups have criticized

the catastrophic event language in the bill claiming that it creates

‘‘enormous loopholes which the Forest Service will exploit to deprive critical areas of interim protection,’’ yet the bill requires preparation of a full environmental impact statement, the most environmentally protective process available under law prior to designation of a catastrophic event area.

Mr. Sprague, in your opinion, is the requirement for a full EIS

prior to entering a catastrophic event area an enormous loophole?

Mr. SPRAGUE. I would have to say no.

Mr. HERGER. Why would you say no?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Because we have authority to do that now without

a special provision that doesn’t always require a full EIS, so this

would be more conservative than what our present practice is, and

we have actually even suggested that this probably isn’t even a

needed element of this bill.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. Mr. Lyons, did you have any further

comment on this?

Mr. LYONS. No, sir.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, so you do not see this as a loophole, and

I would presume, Mr. Lyons, you don’t either.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I have not had any discussions about it. Your

question is the first time I have had to address that other than my

own concern about why is this in there.

Mr. HERGER. Right.

Mr. LYONS. I would suggest, Congressman, this is one of the

areas that we did discuss last week, and perhaps Mark could comment. Mark Madrid could comment on the outcome of that discussion.

Mr. HERGER. OK.
26

Mr. MADRID. It was one of the topics that we discussed because

there were some concerns just as you described, Mr. Herger.

Mr. HERGER. Right.

Mr. MADRID. With OGC’s help, we came up with language that

would address that issue. The issue that we had at the time was

the perception that there was going to be a need for two EISs and

our process exists right now that already streamlines and puts it

into one.

What we did with OGC’s help and with the QLG’s help and then

as well as your staffers, we came up with language that addressed

that, that hopefully met OGC’s concerns of the legal requirements

for meeting that, so we hopefully have closed that loophole or at

least the perception of that.

Mr. HERGER. The perception of it. I believe what I am hearing,

and I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but let me just

state this and correct me if I am wrong, this is more of a perceived

loophole than it is really a loophole. I mean, we are talking about

the most stringent environmental assessment that we have, and as

Mr. Sprague did mention, if anything, this is more conservative in

protecting the environment than what you already have and which

the Forest Service already has at its disposal now.

I see I have a little bit of time. This is so complex an issue that

I think of myself—now, I grew up down in the agricultural area of

my district, even though 80 percent of it is national forest. Just

representing it takes myself several years to get up on the uniqueness of just the California part of the forest, and I would like to

respond to another very good question of Congressman Hinchey in

which he was wondering about why aren’t we allowing more fire

in.

I think it was alluded to by you, Mr. Lyons. What has happened

over the years, well-meaning managers have tried to prevent all

forest fires starting probably in the 1850’s when settlements first

came to California, really intensifying in the earlier part of this

century, and particularly the 1930’s.

Rather than having natural fire that would go through on a regular basis and do a thinning process, because we prevent it all with

Smokey the Bear and well-intentioned people, now, we have these

unnatural, very dense forests, so that now when we have a fire go

through, rather than be a natural process that would burn the underbrush and thin out some trees and our large trees would remain, now we have a situation that is referred to where you have

fire that will be a fuel jump and it will get up into the crowns and

actually destroy all our trees, including the larger ones that normally would have lived.

The purpose of this plan is to go in and attempt to begin restoring this forest as it was pre-settlement time so that we can go back

to the natural lightning type of fires that would be a natural thing

rather than the catastrophic type that we currently have that destroy everything, and that is what our goal is.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just have one question and that is for Mr.

Madrid or anyone who may want to answer it.
27

When Mr. Lyons was testifying, he pointed out that the SNEP

or the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project suggests establishing defensible fuel profile zones by creating a more open forest structure

and that once that is done, prescribed fire could be introduced.

I want to ask you, Mr. Madrid, is H.R. 858 consistent with the

SNEP report? Does it in any way contradict that particular plan

of fire suppression or does it enhance it?

Mr. MADRID. Well, SNEP dealt with things on a very broad scale

all the way throughout the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. In terms of

it being consistent or not, the principles that SNEP uses to apply

to the ground are the very same principles that we would use to

apply this kind of activity to get more of the fire-safe, not fire-proof,

but fire-safe forests that we need to have. In that sense, you could

say it is consistent.

It is really an application of the principles involved in creating

a more healthy ecosystem than it is whether it is consistent with

SNEP or not.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The point is that in the Quincy Library bill,

we are not trying to implement SNEP; that is a whole big project

by itself, isn’t it?

Mr. MADRID. That is correct, yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Connaughton, let me ask you, without

having the fuel breaks, there is no way that we could do any massive management by fire until we set forth those fuel breaks to be

able to control the fires, is that correct?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Actually, you have two related observations.

One is, do we need the fuel breaks. There is great value in fact in

having the defensible fuel profile zones. Fire is a management tool.

Fire is in those ecosystems.

In the Lassen forest, it is approximately 600,000 acres. If fire enters any of those 600,000 acres, it gets away faster than we can

run away, and that is our problem. Until we can reduce the density

of those fuels by cutting down the small trees, removing them

through whatever means possible, then we face the likelihood of gigantic fires and it is a matter of when, not if.

Once those fuels are reduced, then that gives us the opportunity

to use fire as a management tool, either deliberately introduced

into the forest or introduced through natural causes. Currently, approximately 70 percent of our forest fires are caused by lightning.

If we have the proper fuel conditions, that is not a monumental

threat to us, but with the current fuel conditions, it is.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, and I know it is true

in my forests, some of my forests in Idaho, and I am sure it is true

in northern California, too, that management by fire was a tool

that the Native American Indians used, so it has been around a

long time. We are just trying to revisit those things that happened

in history that are good.

But I thank you all for coming such a long way. I wish we had

more time. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your fine testimony, and

I will excuse this panel and invite the other panel. Panel III is Tom

Nelson, District Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries; Bill Coates,

County Supervisor, Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Quincy,

California; Michael Jackson, Esquire, Friends of Plumas Wilderness, Quincy, California; Louis Blumberg, Assistant Regional Direc28

tor of the Wilderness Society, San Francisco, California; and Ryan

Henson, Conservation Associate, California Wilderness Coalition,

Davis, California.

Please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm

under the penalty of perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Thank you very much. I now recognize our next witness, Mr.

Tom Nelson, District Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries. Mr. Nelson.

STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, DISTRICT FORESTER, SIERRA

PACIFIC INDUSTRIES

Mr. NELSON. Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and members

of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Nelson, and I am a forester

for Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding, California, and I am here

today as a founding member of the Quincy Library Group, or as we

refer to it, QLG, on occasion.

It is our hope that you will help us implement the proposals of

this group by supporting the QLG bill recently introduced by Congressman Herger, H.R. 858.

I would like to take this opportunity for the record to thank a

number of people for their invaluable assistance. First, I wish to

thank Mr. Herger for his assistance and his leadership in carrying

our bill. Next, I would like to thank Secretary of Agriculture Glickman and Under Secretary Lyons for their continued support of the

silvicultural prescriptions described in the QLG’s agreement of ’93

which has been accurately translated into H.R. 858. I would also

like to acknowledge and thank both Senators Feinstein and Boxer

for their ongoing efforts to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.

The ideas that are embodied in H.R. 858 actually started in November of 1992, when the three of us sitting here from the Quincy

Library Group at this panel met together for the first time. It was

a very unusual meeting, and between the three of us, we brought

to the table a complete spectrum of opposing viewpoints on national forest management in California.

Yet we soon found that we also shared a number of common

viewpoints. We all cared deeply about the stability and the wellbeing of our communities, about our forested surroundings, and

about the legacy that we leave to our children and our grandchildren. Moreover, we all agree that the current management

strategies of the U.S. Forest Service for this part of California are

unacceptable to each of the diverse viewpoints we represented.

Business as usual will not meet anyone’s needs.

After several of these initial meetings with just the three of us,

we decided to expand our discussions and bring in more ideas and

participants. We wanted to see if others in the community shared

our concerns. We did this, and it soon became apparent that a lot

of members of the community not only shared our concerns, but

they shared a common set of remedies with us.

When I use the term ‘‘we’’ in this case, I am not referring to just

others within the forest products industry. When I say ‘‘we’’ in the

context of the Quincy Library Group, I mean loggers, local environmental leaders, teachers, county government, organized labor,

ranchers, road crews, fly fishers, biologists, and even a retired air29

line pilot who has developed a strong interest in fuels management

strategies.

Given the strong community support, we soon developed and

agreed upon the QLG agreement of 1993. In many respects, this

was our response to President Clinton’s request at the Portland

Forestry Conference, to ‘‘insist on collaboration, not confrontation.’’

A central issue that binds us together is befitting an appearance

today before this Subcommittee. That overarching issue is our concern for the health of the national forests which surround our communities. We are deeply concerned with the very real and very ominous risk for catastrophic wildfires within these forests. To demonstrate this, I would like to call your attention to a position paper

the Quincy Library Group put out some time ago which is attached

to your copies of my testimony.

In this paper, we have tried to show that the present explosive

situation, the potential for significant catastrophic wildfires, is getting worse, not better. At the current pace, without implementation

of this Quincy Library Group bill, we estimate that it will take

these forests 180 years before they even begin to reverse this trend.

The Library Group has designed a comprehensive strategy to

combat the rising risk of catastrophic wildfires, and that strategy

is included in H.R. 858. The prime objective of our initial strategy

is to isolate individual watersheds of 8,000 to 12,000 acres with

shaded fuelbreaks which have already been mentioned. These

fuelbreaks would be about a quarter-mile wide, and they are not

the bare-ground type of fuelbreak that you commonly associate

with a power line or a gas line. They are shaded fuelbreaks. Our

intent is not to stop major fires as they hit these fuelbreaks, but

to force the fire down out of the crown so that firefighters have a

better chance to control it. Put another way, our goal is not to stop

the occurrence of wildfires, but it is to keep them at 10,000 acres,

not 150,000.

We estimate that with this strategy, it will take the Forest Service 20 to 30 years to completely reverse this rising trend of wildfire

risk, but that we can live for the next five years with the Library

Group bill in a much safer condition.

I see the orange light is on, so I will skip some of my testimony,

but I would like to tell you that the Library Group proposals that

are embodied in this bill have received a certain amount of criticism recently, most notably from some of the national preservation

groups. I would urge you to study these criticisms in light of the

growing fear these urban-based groups seem to have toward coalitions which include their locally based affiliates.

We welcome the support of any and all of these nationally based

groups in our pursuit to pass H.R. 858, and it has already been

pointed out that several changes have been offered up from our

group. We will continue to try and accommodate these groups, and

we will continue to work with anyone who is sincere in helping us

get our proposals implemented, but we must also caution you that

we cannot change the original intent and integrity of our agreement, and we hope that you will be cognizant of this as you go

through mark-up, amendment proposals, and hearings.

I see the red light is on, so I would like to thank you for this

opportunity and I would urge your support of this bill so that we
30

might begin the long uphill battle toward implementation of our

agreement. Thank you, again.

[Statement of Tom Nelson may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. I would like to call on

Bill Coates, County Supervisor, Plumas County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Coates.

STATEMENT OF BILL COATES, SUPERVISOR, PLUMAS COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Mr. COATES. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate being in

front of this committee again.

My statement, I think, will be reasonably brief. I started it off

by wanting to say we attended, we listened, and we attempted to

do, and I can assure you, Mr. Hinchey, that if you would have been

in that process, you would have been very pleased with the effort

put forth by people from all sorts of different backgrounds.

I wanted to say that we studied, we worked, we argued, we

fought, we met in a library so we wouldn’t have any fist fights. We

took the environmental organizations’ suggestions on the maps. We

asked them how the forest prescription ought to look, and they told

us. We took that. We walked away from a logging sale that we

could have encouraged because it broke our agreement. We folded

in the Collins Pine method of forestry. We had 80 years of proof

on the ground that that worked; it is much more impressive than

the Forest Service lands right next to them. We took the stream

restoration program that is now drawing visitors from around the

United States as a leader in the United States. We adopted the

SAT guidelines that came to us from the work done in the northern

Spotted Owl country, supported by all the environmental groups, I

believe. We helped to set up the DFPZ (defensible fuel profile

zones) ideas which were kind of given to us by the fire folks as we

started talking about real strategy and not further confusion.

What we have done today is we have brought you a gift, and the

gift isn’t really a gold bar. It is an agreement. It is the agreement

that President Clinton asked us to come up with in Portland. He

told us to get out of the courtrooms and get into the meeting rooms

and find a way to cooperate and get along with each other and do

some listening as well as some talking. The gift is now yours. This

is a good day for me. I am hoping to turn this over to you folks,

and you figure out what to do with it.

Besides addressing the declining forest health which almost

every scientist will tell you is there and is a very real problem,

there is another condition that is at risk. That is the condition of

the decisionmaking process.

We have done what the American system has suggested since

this country was formed, and that is, when you have problems, try

to get people together to talk it over and try to figure it out. We

weren’t trying to take it away from the whole rest of the United

States. We were trying to include them when we could and take

their ideas, but just as a tidal wave would probably bring more

anxiety along the coast, the forest fires are bringing a higher level

of anxiety for those of us that have to face those every summer.

That process was kind of a conflict resolution process. We had

hundreds and hundreds of meetings. It cost us personal money. It
31

is lonely in the middle. We weren’t invited to meetings all at once.

We had to explain ourselves all over the place. Meanwhile, we were

being studied and interviewed by Charles Osgood and the public

television, and it has been draining and exciting, and it has been

mixing some better forest health with some lessening fire danger

which, if you are very strong in the environmental community, you

have to be excited about because it helps with the animals and the

water quality, and it also cuts down the explosive disturbance that

we are calling fire.

Now, around the United States, there is starting to be these

groups popping up all over the place, and they are either a danger

or they are exciting. I think they are exciting. I believe in them,

and if we fail, there is a lot of those groups that will also want to

quit because they know something about the struggle that we have

gone through. If they see our failure, it will take some of the heart

away from them. There is something else at stake here, and that

is the process.

Finally, I would like to thank this committee for its patience with

our bipartisan nature. As most of you know, we are not liberal or

conservative, Democrat or Republican. We are a mixture of all of

those things, and I would particularly like to thank Congressman

Herger for a ton of work, for Congressman Fazio and his work, the

work of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and particularly, too, the

Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman; the Deputy Secretary of

Agriculture, Richard Rominger; and Under Secretary of Agriculture

Jim Lyons. Those folks have saved us when we were getting tired

and discouraged, kept us up and kept us going, and so this is our

thanks to them.

[Statement of Bill Coates may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Coates. That is very encouraging testimony. I would like to call on Michael Jackson, Esquire,

Friends of Plumas Wilderness.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JACKSON, ESQUIRE, FRIEND OF

PLUMAS WILDERNESS

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Madame Chairman. My name is Michael Jackson, which is not always easy.

I am a salmon lawyer, and in terms of the Spotted Owl, two

members of Friends of the Plumas Wilderness filed the original

Spotted Owl lawsuit in California that resulted in the CASPO report that the environmental movement believes rightfully is a long

step forward.

We certainly are not interested in destroying the environment in

California. The only endangered species which we presently have

in the Quincy Library Group area was listed about a week ago

under the State endangered species act law. It was listed by me.

This particular arrangement with the land is such that when the

species was listed, the last 400 salmon in California that entered

the Sierra, there was no problem with the Library Group approach

because we had already set aside all of the land, from ridge top to

ridge top, miles away from that species.

That is the reason that you will find that this group has a good

future is because we try to be proactive. We don’t look at just what
32

we have to deal with today, but we look at what we have to deal

with tomorrow.

I have worked most of my life to preserve species, and I know

these forests and the people within them, because I have lived

there my whole life. I have read every major scientific study concerning natural resources that applies to forestry or watershed

management in California, and this is the single best program that

I have ever seen in California.

The land base is mostly part of the existing forest plan and is

George Miller’s ancient forest bill land base. I don’t know how we

can get any better than that in terms of the land base.

In the course of doing this, the two gentlemen from the environmental movement that are sitting on either side have become longtime friends of mine. In the course of doing the Library Group, the

two gentlemen sitting at the other end of the table have become

friends of mine.

The people of the west don’t like each other, they don’t trust each

other, and they don’t have any respect for each other, and that is

what we are trying to deal with. The distrust and thirst for vengeance that presently exists were most recently elevated by the salvage rider. Our local salvage rider, Barkley, almost tore the Library Group apart.

We want to publicly thank Congressman Fazio, the ancient forest

community, and the timber industry for standing behind the principles of the Library Group at that most divisive time. This was a

time in which we had no legal recourse, and the timber industry,

when the sales were brought up right above those 400 fish that I

was talking about refused to buy the sale.

They needed timber then worse than they ever needed timber in

the history of our community, but a deal was a deal, and so if you

believe this to be simply a timber industry front, take a look at the

history of Barkley, the first salvage rider sale recalled by the Administration in the United States, and realize that the timber industry had a lot to do with that.

The Library Group is both a process and a substantive on-theground solution. First the process. Bill Clinton did something right

in Portland so long ago. When our members came home from various sides, they were energized, enthusiastic, and dedicated. ‘‘Get

out of the courtroom and reach consensus to do the right thing for

both the land and the people.’’ We worked hard. We studied hard.

We traveled hard, because in rural communities, you have to go to

Washington. You have to go to San Francisco to protect your community.

One hundred of us have dedicated ourselves to this problem.

What we need right now is time so that you all understand what

this proposal is about. We need bipartisanship. We are not sure we

have enough of it yet. The Library Group wants everybody to agree

and let us tell you, we will be here as many years as it takes to

convince everybody that this is the right thing to do on this land.

We are in no hurry. We have already spent four and a half years

and hundreds of thousands of hours, so if people ask you for time,

please give it to them. If they ask you for changes that are simply

making it clearer to everybody to end the distrust and the hatred,
33

give them time. This process will stand any light that anybody

shines on it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I very much appreciate the honor of being the first bill considered in your Subcommittee.

[Statement of Michael Jackson may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Michael Jackson. I would like to

call on Louis Blumberg, Assistant Regional Director of The Wilderness Society in San Francisco.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS BLUMBERG, ASSISTANT REGIONAL

DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. BLUMBERG. Thank you, Representative Chenoweth and

members of the committee for inviting me to testify here today. I

am Louis Blumberg, the Assistant Regional Director of The Wilderness Society in the San Francisco office.

I want to stress four points here. You have my written statement

and I would like to request that that be included in the record. I

want to stress four key points here.

We support the general goals of the QLG. The results of the QLG

process as expressed by H.R. 858 has failed to produce a public

consensus. The bill has serious flaws and creates great uncertainty

and Federal legislation is not needed to accomplish our shared

goals.

Now, first, we support the general goals of the Quincy Library

Group. We, like most Americans, want to see healthy forests where

there is less risk of high-intensity wildfire, where there is protection for wilderness areas, ancient forests, and riparian zones, and

where there are livable local communities with viable economies.

We also acknowledge that the Quincy Library Group has made

significant success in strengthening the social fabric and in promoting harmony in local communities. As we have heard here

today, the Quincy Library Group has drawn wide recognition and

support for its process.

However, and the second point here, in this instance, the collaborative process has failed to achieve a public consensus. National,

regional, and other local interests in the Sierra Nevada and even

in Plumas County have not been included, nor have their concerns

been addressed. Collaborative processes are about local involvement, not about local control.

Our efforts which we initiated recently to participate in the process have been given little consideration in the outcome here in this

legislation, and our efforts have been derailed by the speed with

which Congress is acting. I would point that as a demonstration of

the failure of the process today is the broad opposition in California, not to the Quincy Library Group process because everybody

can like the process. Who could not like the idea of people sitting

down to work out their differences?

We support it very much, but the outcome today is seriously

flawed, and the bill is opposed by 19 environmental organizations.

They are national groups, they are regional groups, they are statewide groups. they are grass roots groups in the Sierra Nevada, in

Northern California, including a local group in Plumas County. So

there is strong and uniform opposition to the bill.
34

Now, the bill has many serious flaws. They are enumerated,

most of them, in my written testimony. Fundamentally, the bill is

surrounded by great uncertainty as to what would actually happen

on the ground, where it would happen, and what the impacts would

be. No environmental or economic analysis has been prepared for

the bill as is required by the National Forest Management Act.

Now, a couple of the key problems with the bill. Although nobody

has been able to tell us, our rough calculations indicate that the

bill would increase logging dramatically, at least double the current

rates of logging, and far exceed the level that is estimated to be

sustainable under the CASPO report.

The bill also mandates an experimental and ill-defined management strategy. The DFPZ, the defensible fuel profile zone, is an experimental concept. It does not appear in any forest plan. The scientists in SNEP will tell you that there is no field data to show

that it works.

We think it is promising. We agree with the Library Group, and

we would like to see it tested, but 225,000,000 or 240,000,000 acres

is way too vast an amount of public land to subject to this experiment. We would support a scientific test on one range or district

to evaluate the efficacy of the program.

One of the key problems with the bill is that it would override

current laws, and we talked about this a little here today, and my

understanding of the bill, the way I read it, is that by not requiring

an environmental impact statement before we legislate a management plan, we would have in effect suspended NEPA. We would

also be suspending the National Forest Management Act. Those

two laws are checks and balances. They enforce protection of the

environment and give the public the opportunity to understand

what is going to happen on the ground.

Furthermore, Madame Chairman, you mentioned that the SNEP

process is a bigger process. Right now in California, there is a regional planning exercise going on that is derived from the SNEP

and the California Spotted Owl process. We think that H.R. 858

would preempt this process and would cover one-third of the entire

area being studied for this planning process.

The other problems are listed in the bill, but let me get to the

final point here. Federal legislation is not needed here. The existing forest plans have the flexibility to do the type of management

activities and if, as people have asserted, that all activities will

comply with all laws, then why do we need another law?

Currently, the logging program in the area is quite high. The

Lassen National Forest cut more timber last year than any national forest in the State of California. Congress could use the appropriations process to direct that funds be used to test the QLG

program on one range or district.

We believe Federal legislation is a serious step, and in this case,

would put aside the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. We believe that it should be used

carefully and only when needed.

The public has a right to know and Congress has the obligation

to fully understand the impacts before legislating any forest management policy.
35

In summary, because of the many flaws and the uncertainties

surrounding it, because the bill is not needed, The Wilderness Society must oppose H.R. 858. We are willing to work with the Library

Group and others to establish a broader, collaborative process that

involves all stakeholders to try to come to some agreement on how

these lands should be managed. We think there is some merit to

some of these programs. Thank you.

[Statement of Louis Blumberg may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Blumberg. I would like to call

on Ryan Henson, Conservation Associate, California Wilderness

Coalition, Davis, California. Mr. Henson.

STATEMENT OF RYAN HENSON, CONSERVATION ASSOCIATE,

CALIFORNIA WILDERNESS COALITION

Mr. HENSON. Madame Chairman, thank you for this opportunity

to testify here today before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health regarding H.R. 858.

We have long supported our friends in the Quincy Library Group

and their goals of ecosystem protection, restoration, and community

stability. Much of my sympathy and support for the efforts of the

Quincy Library Group arises from the fact that my father, mother,

and grandfather worked in the timber industry in Mendocino

County, California, and I would have been pleased when I lived in

Mendocino County to have a collaborative forum like the Quincy

Library Group to bring people together with careful, reasoned debate and mutual respect instead of tearing people apart with divisive rhetoric and animosity.

I have gotten lots of report of Quincy Library Group meetings,

and I do understand that there is a lot of very serious debate and

sometimes animosity, but I am always surprised that at the end of

the day, they all come out still shaking hands.

I believe we should consider the Quincy Library Group collaborative process and vision and H.R. 858 at least at this point, as two

different entities. In our view, the current draft of H.R. 858 reflects

neither the full spirit nor in all cases the letter of the Quincy Library Group proposal.

It is imperative that Congressman Herger, the Resources Committee, and most importantly of all the Quincy Library Group work

carefully and openly to ensure that H.R. 858 and any other legislation adopting the mantle of the Quincy Library Group vision be

consistent with that vision.

We have identified six areas where the bill should be modified

to achieve the ecological and social goals of the Quincy Library

Group proposal. Regarding Section 2[c][2], that is the catastrophic

events exception, we appreciate the fact that some modifying language has been added over the last couple of weeks. We do recognize that. We would like to ensure, and Mike Jackson and I were

just going over this over in the corner a couple hours ago, that

other sensitive areas of interest and concern to both members of

the Quincy Library Group and the environmental community and

the community generally are protected from that potential serious

loophole.

Section 2[d] regarding resource management activities, we believe that should be modified so that it is made clear that the
36

thinning, logging, and other programs authorized by the bill will be

consistent with existing environmental laws and policies.

Perhaps that is purely symbolic, perhaps it is unnecessary, but

considering the events of the past year or more, I would feel very

good to see it in there.

Section 2[d][1] and [2] may actually, as Louis Blumberg pointed

out, double the amount of logging authorized in the pilot project

area, this two and two and one-quarter national forests. We would

like to see the amount of logging capped at what the California

Spotted Owl science team recommended for the affected forests.

Section 2[e] regarding cost effectiveness should be deleted or at

least altered so that cheaper but perhaps more harmful projects

are not authorized over slightly more costly but more benign

projects.

Section 2[f] regarding other multiple-use activities should be altered to eliminate the possibility that the Forest Service will use

this provision to authorize timber sales in addition to the projects

authorized in section [d].

Section 2[g][3] regarding funding flexibility should be stricken

since it may allow the Forest Service to reduce funding and other

necessary programs to fund the thinning and logging described in

section [d].

Now, we have been told by many members of the Quincy Library

Group and also by many congressional staff members that most of

our concerns have already been satisfied one way or another in the

legislation. The problem is, we haven’t had the time to sit down

and have folks, both congressional staff and members of the Quincy

Library Group show me where these things are, and as Mike mentioned, I would like to have that time.

We have worked and are willing to work with the Quincy Library

Group and members of Congress to bring about these changes as

well as other changes that members of the environmental community or the wider community would like to see made.

We think this is a hopeful process and a welcome process, and

we would like to see it move forward in a very careful and deliberative way that does honor to the Quincy Library Group tradition.

Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify.

[Statement of Ryan Henson may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Henson. I would

like to open the time for questioning now with Mr. Hinchey.

Mr. HINCHEY. I don’t have any questions at this time, Madame

Chairman, but I would like to express my appreciation to the panel

members for their coming here and for their efforts in trying to

solve this very knotty problem, and I have a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of this problem after hearing your testimony, each of you representing your diverse points of view.

I just want to thank you very much for the extraordinary effort

that you have put in over the last four years, along with your representatives in trying to resolve this issue, and I think that we

should pledge ourselves to try to work with you as you continue to

work this problem out to try to bring about a solution that is acceptable in some way to everyone. My deepest thanks to you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Herger.
37

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Madame Chair, and this is an exciting

process. It is an exciting process, I think of the years of the community that I represented that has been so polarized with the environmental group on one side and those who are trying to earn a living

on the other side, in these very much timber—excuse me. I could

have worded much better, but those who have worked in these forest product economy-based communities to see just how they have

gone at heads for so long and be able to come here and be able to

work with someone who had been on perhaps the other side. Mr.

Michael Jackson and Linda Blum, some couple people who are nationally recognized within the environmental community, and to

see us be able to work together really brings a degree of joy to this

job and responsibility that I have that I had not ever been able to

experience before, and I want to thank you for everyone who has

been involved, and of course, Bill Coates and Tom Nelson and so

many others. I think you mentioned 100. It really is something

that is exciting.

Mr. Blumberg, if I could ask you and I have the bill here in front

of me, have you had an opportunity to read the bill?

Mr. BLUMBERG. Yes, I have.

Mr. HERGER. Could you tell me where, on what page it is that

it indicates that environmental laws have been suspended?

Mr. BLUMBERG. What the bill does is, it mandates an alternative

forest management plan that was developed by a group of citizens,

in this case, in Quincy, California. They developed that plan themselves; that is the agreement.

The National Forest Management Act is our Federal law that

governs the development and the implementation of planning for

our national forests. So rather than going through the procedures

mandated by Federal law in the National Forest Management Act

which also involve the National Environmental Policy Act with a

companion environmental analysis, this particular group has said

this is the plan we want to have, and what Congress is attempting

to do with H.R. 858 is say, we are going to set aside the National

Forest Management Act, and we are going to set aside the National

Environmental Policy Act. We are going to adopt this plan here as

our national forest management plan, and then we will worry

about the analysis later on when we go out to cut trees or we go

out to do defensible fuel profile zones. So what the bill has done

is that it has set aside those two important laws.

In another respect, the CASPO guidelines which have been

amended to the forest plans were, as you know, designed to protect

wildlife habitat and reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire.

Those guidelines are very strict. They are quantitative, they are

numerical. When you come to the concept of DFPZ (defensible fuel

profile zones), as I said in my testimony, that is an experimental

term of which there are no standards and guidelines.

We are quite concerned, and we are seeing this in other national

forests in the Sierra Nevada. We are seeing the Sequoia National

Forest, the Stanislaus National Forest, all interpreting this concept

of DFPZ in different ways.

One forest wants to cut all the trees whether they are 30 inches

or bigger or not, so we are seeing an abuse, if you will, from our

perspective of the concept of DFPZ. The bill nor the 1993 agree38

ment nor the forest plans define what is actually going to happen

with the DFPZ, so again, that is stepping outside of the normal

planning process that is set up by Federal law.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Jackson, if I could ask you perhaps to, someone

who has——

Mr. JACKSON. Certainly, since it is my profession. My understanding of the law is that unless the words notwithstanding any

other provision of law apply and we have all been through that

road and we don’t want to go down it, all of the existing environmental laws apply to this program. I am sorry that Congressman

Hinchey left, because essentially, what we are legislating here is

something that we have been asking to do through the forest plan

process since 1993.

The idea is that it is time to amend our forest plans by law, and

we want to get on with it, but as the Spotted Owl experts in the

Sierra Nevada ecosystem project say, as we have stumbled through

all of this learning about ecosystem management, the timber industry is on its knees. There is no need for that. We can do some useful environmental work so that by the time these plans are amended to move from the logging of big trees to the logging of the smaller material, we have an economy able to take care of the new markets.

We are not asking for any dispensation and I disagree with Louis

completely.

Mr. NELSON. Congressman Herger, may I add to that as well? I

realize the red light is on. I want——

Mr. HERGER. Madame Chair, with your permission.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection.

Mr. NELSON. I have two points on my driver’s license already, so

I am real cognizant of the red light here.

To add to that, if we did in fact propose to do half of the things

that Louis just proposed or his interpretation of our bill, I can assure you that I would not be sitting here and I know that Michael

Jackson would not be sitting here.

Quite frankly, the response from the Forest Service to that almost identical question was, they didn’t even think we needed to

do anything with the forest plan, that everything that we were proposing was in conformance with their existing plans.

We would probably agree with that, but we are so sure that our

proposals when compared to any other proposals out there are

going to be shown as superior that we have actually asked for this

additional round of NEPA.

We would like to see an amendment. We have a five-year proposal before you in this bill. We would like to see this analyzed for

a much longer term, and we would like everyone to take a look at

it. We welcome anyone who wants to compare it with in open

forum, because you won’t find anything better than what we have

proposed here.

But I wanted to make the point that we would like to have that

so that we don’t get stopped from implementing ours by someone

enjoining our procedure, so we feel we are somewhat insured by

going through that procedure as well.

Mr. HERGER. Maybe back to Mr. Jackson, you are a lawyer, you

are an environmental lawyer. Is the Quincy proposal consistent
39

with the law and the plans in the two national forests or in these

three national forests?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir, it is. The present plans call for clear-cutting about 12,000 acres of land and the removal of 360,000,000

board feet of timber from the two forests. The present operation of

the Plumas National Forest in green sales is 13,000,000 board feet

in a forest that traditionally cut about 170,000,000. This is well

within the existing forest plan limits.

Mr. HERGER. One last final comment. Mr. Henson, you mentioned how you grew up in a community with a forest product community and how you wished in your community you had seen what

we have seen in the Quincy area where we have had all the sides

get together.

I guess my concern would be that if we are doing what I believe

I heard you say you wished had happened in your community

where we have had for four long years with countless thousands of

hours that have been spent with people who are knowledgeable on

both sides, if we are unable to implement a plan that they come

up with after four years, I wonder just where we would ever be

able to introduce a plan that we had come up with.

Madame Chair, I thank you very much and I thank all of our

people for participating and all the countless hours that you have

put into this process, particularly the members of the Quincy Library Group.

I guess there was a question here that we hadn’t involved a national environmental group. Would you like to comment on that,

Mr. Jackson? Did we——

Mr. JACKSON. Sure. I may as well thoroughly drive myself out of

the movement.

The National Environmental——

Mr. HERGER. Maybe I should ask one of the others.

Mr. JACKSON. That is all right.

Mr. HERGER. My understanding is that we did——

Mr. JACKSON. I will take it. Louis and I had our first conversation about the Library Group in 1993. He first saw our maps in

1988.

There has been no secret from the national environmental movement in regard to this. Their position seems to be and they can

speak for themselves, but as I understand it, they support what we

did in the agreement, they support our process, but they are still

uncomfortable that the bill truly reflects the broad nature of our

process.

That is why I said that I would really hope that you and this

Subcommittee, because I think this first bipartisan thing is important, will allow us time to respond to these folks.

I don’t think we are going to agree to change the substance of

what we are doing, but certainly, we are interested in language

that is very, very specific, and given the history and the hard feelings, I think it is a reasonable request on their part.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much and again, I want to mention

that everything I hear is that we have been involving everyone

from the beginning, and I again want to thank all of you for appearing here today.
40

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Thank you very

much. Mr. Jackson, I am not through with you yet.

I know your patience must be wearing out, but I do have some

questions. Mr. Coates, Mr. Henson had some concerns. Do you feel

that these are concerns that you can address pretty easily and have

you been working with Mr. Henson?

Mr. COATES. Actually, I don’t know Ryan. I am kind of getting

to know him today. Some of the things that he mentioned, today

would be the first day that I have been exposed to them.

We are very willing to take a look at that and none of them

sounded like deal-breakers. I think we can accommodate that.

I was going to say, pertaining to some of Louis’ comments, that

he and I probably don’t agree on lots of things. He gets paid for

conflict and I, like some of you folks, get paid to make things work.

I am hoping that one of these days, he has a plan that I can get

behind that addresses the health problem in the Sierras at a certain pace that gives us a chance to work our way back to pre-settlement condition, and I am hoping he will work with me either on

this bill or on other things so that I can come to understand that

those folks are really interested in getting things done instead of

just raising the goal post one time after another with endless concerns.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Jackson, do you feel that Mr. Henson’s

concerns are something that can be pretty easily worked out? Has

the group been consistently working with Mr. Henson?

Mr. JACKSON. The group has not. One of our environmental

members has, and my experience in working with Mr. Henson is

that he is a very reasonable individual, and I do believe that there

are areas that can come to closure.

It is going to be a policy decision in the end whether or not the

extent of this experiment is reasonable, but I will tell you one

thing. If the experiment is smaller, for instance, if we took Louis

up on the one ranger district, we can’t prove anything, and I think

he knows that.

Landscape problems require landscape solutions and when Dr.

Jerry Franklin came to Plumas County—in one of the five times he

came to Plumas County to look at the Quincy Library Group situation, he made it very clear to us that we could not do something

small. The problem is large, the solution must be large.

Yes, I think we can work with Mr. Henson, and I have hope for

Louis.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I want to say, Mr.

Jackson, that your testimony was shocking to me. It was riveting.

It was very good, and I guess I just have to say I come from the

old school where a long time ago, when I moved as a young bride

to a town in northern Idaho that is a logging town, I learned there

that decisions in the forest should be made by foresters who understood the dynamics of the forest, and that with the advent of NEPA

and with the advent of the implementation of the National Forest

Management Act, I was suspicious about people on the street making decisions about things that happened in the mountains that affected our economy.

I have to tell you very honestly, I am still like a thoroughbred

horse they are trying to lead into a new stall. I am a little jittery
41

about this bill, but I am overwhelmed at what you have accomplished, and you have my undying support because I believe this

is the vision that Gifford Pinchot laid out.

This is the vision that Bruce Vento wanted to see when he

helped construct some of these original bills so that people in the

local level would have input.

I am learning a lot. It is a new day, and I want to truly grow

with the circumstances, and I have to say that if I heard from you

every day, my rate of growth would probably be straight up. I don’t

usually get that effusive, but I do want to close by saying one thing

that I think we are all concerned about, Mr. Coates mentioned it,

and that is the conflict industry. In a report to his board of directors, the Sierra Club chairman Michael McCloskey said, in November of 1995, a new dogma is emerging as a challenge to us. It embodies the proposition that the best way for the public to determine

how to manage the interest in the environment is through collaboration among stakeholders, not through normal governmental processes.

I think he understands the problem. He just doesn’t see the proper solution yet. He went on to say further, it is posited that this

is best done at the community level through a consensus process.

Yes, Mr. McCloskey, this is exactly what we are trying to do, and

I just want to say to Mr. Herger, to all of you, it is an honor to

me and I hope that it bodes well for us all in this term to be able

to see this kind of legislation come before this committee as the

first legislation, and I hope it will set the course for the future.

Thank you all very much for your very, very interesting testimony, and I do want to let you know that the record will remain

open for any additions or corrections to the record for ten days.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; and

the following was submitted for the record:]

TESTIMONY OF RYAN HENSON, CONSERVATION ASSOCIATE, OF THE CALIFORNIA

WILDERNESS COALITION

Dear Madam Chairman:

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Forests and

Forest Health of the Committee on Resources regarding H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group (QLG) Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997.

The California Wilderness Coalition is an alliance of grassroots, regional, and national conservation groups as well as businesses and individual citizens from

throughout California. Our primary purpose is to monitor the management of California’s public lands, educate the public about their importance, and train citizens

to become active stewards of their own public lands.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide input on H.R. 858. While we support

most of the goals of the QLG and have many valuable friends in the group, there

a few parts of the bill that we feel should be altered and clarified. What follows is

a short discussion of each section of H.R. 858 of concern to us, as well as specific

recommendations for how these concerns can be resolved. By adding these recommended changes, perhaps you can resolve some of the issues raised by the conservation community and more accurately reflect the letter and spirit of the QLG

agreement.

Section 2(c)(2): Exception For Designated Catastrophic Event Areas

Discussion: We welcome the recent inclusion of the words ‘‘catastrophic’’ and

‘‘within the pilot project area’’ to this section. This will both lessen the scope of this

otherwise dangerous loophole, and prevent roadless areas and a number of other important areas supposedly protected by the QLG agreement from being logged under

the provisions of Section 2(c)(2). However, we are very concerned that other ancient
42

forest and critical wildlife habitat can still be logged undo this provision if these

areas experience natural disturbance events.

Recommendation: Strike the entire section. Or, at the very least, change the first

sentence in Section 2(c)(2) to read: ‘‘With the exception of spotted owl habitat areas,

spotted owl protected activity centers, and areas of late-successional emphasis as

identified in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report, the Secretary shall....’’

Adding this language would necessitate striking ‘‘Except as provided in paragraph

(2)’’ from Section 2(c)(1).

Section 2(d): Resource Management Activities

Discussion: H.R. 858 will override many existing protections for the affected public lands provided by Federal law and policy. For example, the recommendations of

the California Spotted Owl (CASPO) report are not specifically mentioned in the

bill. Currently, the CASPO report is the primary means by which the ancient forest

of the Sierra Nevada are protected from the wholesale cutting of the past. Prominent members of the QLG have made it quite clear that the resource management

activities endorsed by the group should be fully consistent with CASPO and other

applicable Federal laws and policies.

Recommendation: At the end of the first paragraph of Section 2(d), add ‘‘consistent

with applicable federal law and policy.’’

Section 2(d)(1) and (2)

Discussion: The 40,000-60,000 acres of shaded fuelbreaks, individual tree selection, and group selection logging authorized by H.R. 858 are, without a doubt, the

most controversial aspects of the bill. With the exception of the acreage figures for

the proposed fuelbreaks, there is no limit to the amount of logging authorized by

this provision. John Buckley of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center

estimates that the logging program described in this section will at least double the

amount of logging allowed on the affected public lands. In addition, the logging

methods mandated by the bill have not been proven scientifically to decrease the

threat of catastrophic wildfire. We contend that it is unwise to mandate such an

extensive logging program without first having some idea of the ecological, social,

and fiscal risks, consequences, and benefits involved. At the very least, we should

cap this logging at the level of cutting the CASPO report estimates is acceptable

for the affected public lands. Not including salvage logging, this includes 47.1 million board feet (MMBF) for the Lassen National Forest, 49.6 MMBF for the Plumas

National Forest, and 27.5 MMBF for the Tahoe National Forest. These estimates

are the best scientific guide we have of what logging levels are consistent with

maintaining old-growth forest habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Lastly, the acreage figure for the fuelbreaks preempts the National Environmental Policy Act analysis

process by forcing the Forest Service to log at least 40,000 acres per year even if,

after considering public input and conducting a thorough review of the social, ecological, and fiscal impacts of implementing the program, they decide that a smaller

fuelbreak program is more desirable.

Recommendation: Strike the acreage target in Section 2(d)(1) for the fuelbreaks

and insert in its place ‘‘not to exceed the timber volume estimates for the pilot

project area contained in the California Spotted Owl report.’’ At the end of Section

2(d)(2), add ‘‘The volume of timber derived from the implementation of this provision

shall not, when combined with the resource management activities described in subsection (d)(l), exceed the timber volume estimates for the pilot project area contained

in the California Spotted Owl report.’’

Section 2(e): Cost-Effectiveness

Discussion: This provision could potentially allow the Forest Service to place

budgetary concerns over ecological ones to the detriment of clean water, wildlife

habitat, and other key values.

Recommendation: Delete the section. Or, at the very least, add ‘‘and ecologically

desirable’’ after ‘‘cost-effective.’’

Section 2(f): Effect on Multiple Use Activities

Discussion: This section could be interpreted to allow even more logging than is

authorized in subsection (d).

Recommendation: At the end of subsection (f), add ‘‘The resource management activities described in subsection (d) shall constitute the entire timber sale program

for the pilot project area.’’

Section 2(g)(3): Flexibility

Discussion: This provision will worsen the existing situation on the affected public

lands where the needs of the timber program often supersedes recreation, watershed

rehabilitation, fuels treatment, and other worthy programs. If Congress supports the

pilot program, Congress should allocate sufficient funds to implement it.

Recommendation: Strike the provision.
43

Thank you, once again, for this opportunity to review H.R. 858 and offer recommendations to the Subcommittee about how it can be improved.

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS BLUMBERG, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS

SOCIETY, CALIFORNIA/NEVADA OFFICE

Thank you Representative Chenoweth and members of the Committee for inviting

me to testify today. The Wilderness Society (TWS) is a national conservation organization devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife, protecting America’s public

lands and fostering an American land ethic. I am also submitting this testimony on

behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

TWS and NRDC support the general goals of the Quincy Library Group (QLG).

However, in this instance the collaborative process has not produced a public consensus. HR 858 does not adequately reflect the concerns of regional and national

conservation organizations in California. The bill would mandate an experimental

logging program that could greatly increase logging levels and generate significant

environmental impacts. Neither the environmental nor the economic costs of the bill

have been estimated. Fundamentally, legislation is not needed to accomplish the objectives shared by the QLG and the general public. For these reasons, The Wilderness Society, NRDC and 17 other grassroots, regional, and national groups are opposed to HR 858.

I have attached a copy of a letter from the other organizations expressing their

opposition to the bill to my testimony and ask that both be included in the record.

These other groups are: Sierra Club, Plumas Forest Project, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Yosemite Area Audubon, Tule River Conservancy, Cal

Trout, Klamath Forest Alliance, California Wilderness Coalition, Friends of the

River, Friends of the Inyo, South Fork Mountain Defense, Friends Aware of Wildlife

Needs, Environmental Protection Information Cener, North Coast Environmental

Center, Citizens for Better Forestry, Willits Environmental Center, and the

Mendocino Environmental Center.

The Wilderness Society (TWS) and NRDC support the goals of the QLG. As would

most Americans, we would like our national forests to be healthy, functioning ecosystems, with less risk of high intensity wildfire, and where uneven age management was used more often; where roadless areas, ancient forest and riparian zones

are all protected; and that communities surrounded by or near national forests be

good places to live.

We recognize the sincere efforts of the Quincy Library Group to promote social

harmony in the communities of Plumas, Lassen and Sierra counties. As the report

of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) makes clear, like other communities

near national forests, these in the northern Sierra are going through a transition,

with timber jobs declining in relation to growth in other sectors of the economy. We

realize that economic transition can be difficult, especially in rural areas where the

opportunities for new work are fewer than in the more populated urban areas. In

this light, the QLG has produced some meaningful achievements by bringing people

in that area with different, sometimes opposing views together. The QLG has helped

to strengthen the social fabric of the area and stimulated a dialogue about forest

management that has been heard far beyond the northern Sierra, and has brought

us here today to discuss H.R. 858, a bill that is intended to codify into federal law

the alternative forest management policy developed by the QLG.

The bill does not reflect public consensus: We recognize the value of local involvement in resource management and the potential for collaborative process. But when

dealing with natural resource issues, collaborative processes must involve all stakeholders, including national and regional interests. As the President’s Council on

Sustainability noted in its report last year,

‘‘Individuals, communities, and institutions need to work individually, and collaboratively to ensure stewardship of natural systems. Finding an acceptable integration

of local, regional, and national interests is not without difficulty. Issues involving

public lands and marine resources, for instance, require that a broad, national perspective be maintained.’’ (‘‘Sustainable America, a New Consensus,’’ President’s

Council on Sustainable Development, 1996, pp. 114-115)

When it comes to national land issues, just because one group of local people

comes to an agreement over how they would like the land managed, does not automatically mean that the agreement is good or appropriate. Our national forests belong to all Americans, and the opinions of some of those fortunate to live close a

forest should have no more influence than any other Americans. Collaboration is

about local involvement, not local control.
44

The bill before the Committee today is seemingly the result of a collaborative process based in Quincy, Plumas County, California, but despite its characterization

as a ‘‘local’’ process, in fact some of the timber industry participants come from as

far away as Redding, California, over 100 miles away in Shasta County. Though

some of them manage private lands in the Quincy area, the QLG collaborative process has been limited solely to the public lands in the sub-region. Equally important

is how the private timber lands are managed, yet the 1993 QLG agreement and HR

858 are silent on this issue.

Overall, HR 858 is vague and creates great uncertainty about what actually will happen ‘‘on-the-ground,’’ though one outcome is clear—if enacted, the bill could result in a great increase in logging on a vast, two and one quarter million acre tract

of public land in the northern Sierra Nevada. The serious flaws in the bill and its

bias towards logging over environmental protection demonstrate that this collaborative process, to date, has failed to achieve public consensus. The broader public

interest is not adequately represented in this bill, nor has it been in the process,

which is why the bill is opposed by 19 national, state, regional, and grassroots

groups throughout California, including local groups in the Sierra Nevada and one

in Plumas County. Federal legislation is not needed: The existing forest plans have the flexibility to allow the Forest Service to implement the type of management envisioned by the

QLG—the singular use of uneven age forest management and the construction of

‘‘a strategic system of defensible shaded fuelbreaks’’ (though the latter term is undefined). If, as QLG members have repeatedly stated, all activities will be consistent

with all existing laws, including the CASPO logging rules, and subject to analysis

under the National Environmental Policy Act, then we are unclear why Congress

needs to take the serious step of codifying the QLG proposal into federal law. In

addition, a great amount of logging and fuels treatment is already going on in the

area. In fact, one third of the increased appropriations for fuel treatment in California approved by Congress last year went to the Quincy area. Theoretically, all

of these activities are also consistent with all laws and the CASPO rules. We urge

this committee to seriously evaluate the need for federal legislation in this instance.

We believe legislation is not needed. The bill is seriously flawed: HR. 858 has many serious problems and is unaccept- ably vague in many places. The Wilderness Society and the other organizations listed above are strongly opposed to the bill in its current form. Should the bill move

forward, we urge the Committee to thoroughly revise it to produce a public consensus that provides adequate protection for the environment and a compromise

that is fair to the American people. A discussion of some of the most serious problems with the bill follows.

1. The bill would increase logging dramatically on the affected forests. HR 858 would mandate a massive program of fuelbreak construction and uneven-age logging

resulting in a huge increase in logging. Though no analysis has been presented by

the QLG to inform the public just how great the logging levels will be, conservative

estimates indicate that the levels would at least double, and therefore far exceed

the level estimated to be sustainable under the forest plans as amended by the

CASPO policy.

Moreover, current logging levels on these national forests are already at least as

great as the levels on any other forests in California. Last year, these forests accounted for almost 50 percent of all public land logging in the Sierra Nevada. The

Lassen National Forest cut more timber last year than any other national forest in

California and exceeded the level estimated to be sustainable under CASPO by 44

mmbf. The bill will require an enormous increase in logging that could cause significant environmental damage. The public has the right to know what the logging levels and resulting impacts might be, just as Congress has the obligation to understand the impacts of HR 858 before proceeding with the bill.

2. The program would fail to comply with existing environmental protections. The

bill would effectively override any restrictions in existing forest plans that are inconsistent with the vague direction in the QLG program. Of great concern in this regard is the current CASPO policy adopted by the Forest Service in 1993 for the entire Sierra. Neither the ‘‘fuelbreak system’’ nor the group selection harvest technique described in the QLG program require compliance with CASPO, which is a

scientifically-based strategy designed to protect wildlife and ancient forest while reducing the risk of wildfire. In addition, the bill would override other provisions in

existing plans that protect wildlife, visual quality, and riparian areas. Also, the 1993

QLG agreement, which is incorporated into HR 858 by reference, specifically states

that the QLG program ‘‘will expand the existing landbase available for timber production beyond that currently ‘zoned’ for production.’’ Yet, HR 858 fails to establish

a public process to accomplish this reallocation of the landbase, which is a corner45

stone of the National Forest Management Act. Any alternative forest management

plan must comply with existing laws and regulations, including CASPO. All logging

should take place on the existing timber base. 3. The bill would mandate implementation of an experimental and ill-defined

management approach over a vast area of public land and for an excessive time period. Neither the ‘‘fuelbreak system’’ nor group selection techniques are defined in

the bill, nor has the ‘‘fuelbreak system’’ been implemented extensively in the Sierra.

A QLG paper on fuelbreaks (the 1993 QLG agreement was silent on fuels issues),

‘‘QLG Fuelbreak Strategy,’’ acknowledged that issues like ‘‘wildlife or riparian corridors,’’ ‘‘prescriptions or guidelines for the design of fuelbreak projects,’’ and ‘‘criteria for decisions on which kinds of fuelbreak should have priority,’’ all need to be

addressed, and states that ‘‘[u]ntil these questions, among others are adequately addressed at [the] landscape scale, fuelbreak implementation, no matter how well conceived and planned at the project level, will be overly vulnerable to professional and

legal challenge.’’ Yet the bill fails to address any of these issues or to establish a

public process for doing so. Requiring implementation of these untested and ill-defined approaches on millions of acres of public lands for a minimum of five years

(and possibly longer), regardless of the outcome of the pending Cal Owl regional

planning process, could result in significant environmental harm and is highly inappropriate. In addition, although the bill mandates reporting on the project’s ‘‘benefits,’’ it fails to require reporting on its environmental and economic costs or on the

overall effectiveness of the project in reducing fire risks. We recommend that the program’s management approach be defined more clearly and the overall scale of the project be reduced significantly. For example, we would

support implementation of a carefully-designed research project testing the application of the new approach on one ranger district with appropriate limitations on acreage, timber volume, and timing. 4. The bill contains a loophole that would eliminate protection for sensitive areas.

The major environmental benefit of the QLG proposal is that it would provide interim protection from logging for selected roadless areas, spotted owl habitat areas,

and protect activity centers. However the bill provides a loophole that would allow

the Secretary to designate these areas for logging whenever there are ‘‘catastrophic

disturbances from wildfires, insect infestations, disease, drought or other natural

causes.’’ (The bill does not define ‘‘catastrophic. ’’) Because these are all natural

process in forest ecosystems, this provision could be misinterpreted by the Forest

Service to apply to almost any acre of the national forest. This is a major loophole,

and history strongly suggests that the Forest Service will exploit this exception to

deprive critical areas of interim protection while undermining the environmental

benefits of the original QLG agreement. The ‘‘catastrophic event area’’ exception is

unacceptable and should be eliminated.

5. The bill circumvents the NEPA and land management processes. Although section 2(i) requires the Forest Service to initiate a land management plan amendment

process in compliance with NEPA, it mandates implementation of the QLG program

without regard to the results of the process. In effect, the pilot project will be implemented for a minimum of five years, even if the NEPA process mandated by the

bill reveals that the project will produce unforeseen and/or significant adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, the bill fails to establish a deadline by which the plan

amendment process must be completed, so that the pilot project may be implemented indefinitely without NEPA review.

6. HR 858 would preempt the Cal Owl process: The Forest Service is currently

engaged in a comprehensive regional planning process for the entire Sierra Nevada

including the public lands incorporated into HR 858, in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and NFMA. If enacted into federal law, the QLG alternative forest

management plan would override any future administrative decision made through

the Cal Owl process. Should the Committee proceed, HR 858 should incorporate language that would require amendment of the QLG program to conform to the subsequent Cal Owl policy.

7. The fiscal impact is unknown: No cost estimate of the program mandated by

the bill has been completed. Given the agency’s difficulty in attracting bids in recent

months, chances are good that much of the logging mandated by HR 858 would result in a financial loss to the taxpayers. In addition, without an additional line item

appropriation, funding for the QLG program would need to come from existing programs in the Forest Service budget. As with the level of logging, the public has the

right to know and Congress has the obligation to understand the fiscal implications

of HR 858 or any other legislation before it is enacted.

The bill has several other problems. The reference in section 2(f) to other ‘‘multiple use activities is vague, and could be interpreted to allow widespread logging

within the project area, in addition to the management activities mandated by the
46

bill. HR 858 should clearly state that the management program required by the

QLG proposal would constitute the entire timber program for those forests. Section 2(e), by requiring use of the most ‘‘cost-effective’’ approach, will encourage the Forest Service to log the largest trees (which provide the greatest revenues),

rather than using more environmentally-sound approaches such as thinning and

prescribed burning. Section 2(g) allows the Secretary to use all funds allocated to the affected national forests to implement the QLG program, including by implication, funds allocated for

wildlife, wilderness, recreation, prescribed burning and any other forest program.

Thus, critical work in these important areas could effectively be underfunded or

even entirely unfunded. Because of the magnitude of these problems, TWS and the other organizations listed above must oppose HR 858. The environmental and economic costs are unknown yet potentially quite significant. If enacted, the program mandated by the

bill could cause serious environmental damage to a vast area of public land. In this

instance, the collaborative process has failed to produce a public consensus because

the views of the full range of stakeholders have not been adequately represented

at the library table. Moreover, legislation is unnecessary to accomplish the common

objectives of the QLG and the broader public. We are willing to work with the QLG,

the Forest Service, and this Committee to develop forest management policy that

provides adequate protection for our public lands and draws broad-based public support. HR 858 does not meet that test.

Thank you again for the invitation to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

February 26, 1997

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

re: Quincy Library Group Legislation

Dear Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein:

Our organizations have been involved with forest management in California for many years at the local, state, and national levels. We are writing today to express

our concerns about the legislation being promoted by the Quincy Library Group and

Representative Herger. Despite the efforts of some of us to work with members of

the Quincy Library Group (QLG) to resolve our differences, we must oppose the February 7 draft of the bill, which is the last version we have seen. Overall, the legislation is vague and creates great uncertainty about what would actually happen on

a vast, two million acre tract of public land. If implemented, the program could

cause serious environmental damage and establish a bad precedent for legislating

public land management. Some of the most problematic provisions of the bill are

discussed below.

1. The bill would increase logging dramatically on the affected forests. Current

logging levels on these national forests are as great or greater as on any others in

California. Last year, these forests accounted for almost 50 percent of all public land

logging in the Sierra Nevada. The bill will require an enormous increase in logging

that could cause significant environmental damage and could easily exceed the level

estimated to be sustainable under the existing CASPO policy.

The program would fail to comply with existing environmental protections. The

bill would effectively override any restrictions in existing forest plans that are inconsistent with the vague direction in the QLG program. Of great concern in this regard is the current CASPO policy adopted by the Forest Service in 1993 for the entire Sierra. Neither the ‘‘fuelbreak system’’ nor the group selection harvest technique described in the QLG program require compliance with CASPO, which is a

scientifically-based strategy designed to protect wildlife and ancient forest while reducing the risk of wildfire. In addition, the bill would override other provisions in

existing plans that protect wildlife, visual quality, and riparian areas, and allow for

the reallocation of lands without adherence to the process required by the National

Forest Management Act. Any alternative forest management plan must comply with

existing laws, regulations, and protections.

3. The bill would mandate an experimental and ill-defined management approach

over a vast area of public land and for an excessive time period. Neither the

‘‘fuelbreak system’’ nor group selection techniques are defined in the bill, nor has

the ‘‘fuelbreak system’’ been implemented extensively in the Sierra. In addition, the

bill fails to establish a public process for determining how and where these manage47

ment approaches will be implemented. A smaller scale experimental program designed to scientifically test these methods is essential before they are applied on a

scale as broad as the QLG proposal.

4. The bill contains a loophole that would eliminate protection for sensitive areas.

The bill would allow areas protected under the QLG agreement of 1993 and areas

recommended for wilderness protection by the forest plan, to be logged after being

designated as a ‘‘catastrophic event area.’’ This loophole effectively eliminates the

major environmental benefit of the QLG proposal.

5. The bill circumvents the NEPA and land management processes. The bill requires the Forest Service to conduct the experimental QLG program without analysis consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act on the possible impacts

on wildlife, riparian areas, and the forest matrix.

The bill has several other problems. For example, it does not take into account

the recent information in the report of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project that

depicts on maps areas of ancient forest and key watersheds that it recommends for

protection. The bill allows any funds allocated to the forests to be used for the QLG

logging program potentially at the expense of the recreation, wildlife and fish, wilderness, controlled burning, and all other Forest Service programs.

Because of the magnitude of its problems, our organizations must oppose the QLG

bill as currently drafted. If enacted, the program mandated by the bill could cause

serious environmental damage to a vast area of public land. In this instance, the

collaborative process has failed because the full range of stakeholders are not represented at the table. We urge you to oppose the bill in its existing form. We are

interested in working with you and your staff to develop forest management policy

that provides adequate protection for our public lands and draws broad-based public

support. We would welcome your response through Louis Blumberg, The Wilderness

Society, P.O.; Box 29241, San Francisco, 94129-0241.

Sincerely

Louis Blumberg

The Wilderness Society

San Francisco

David Edelson

Natural Resources Defense Council

San Francisco

John Buckley

Central Sierra Environmental

Resource Center, Sonora

Dan Utt

Tule River Conservancy

Poderville

Dick Kunstman

Yosemite Area Audubon

Mariposa

Barbara Boyle

Sierra Club

Sacramento

Ryan Henson

California Wilderness Coalition

Davis

Neil Dion

John Preschutti

Plumas Forest Project

Blairsden, Plumas County

Steve Evans

Friends of the River

Sacramento

Sally Miller

Friends of the Inyo

Lee Vining, Mono County
48

Larry Glass

South Fork Mountain Defense

Eureka

Craig Thomas

Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs

Georgetown

Cecilia Lanman

Environmental Protection Information

Center, Garberville

Brett Matzke

Cal Trout

Camp Nelson

Felice Pace

Klamath Forest Alliance

Etna

Tim McKay

Northcoast Environmental Centa

Arcata

David Drell

Willits Environmental Center

Willits

Betty and Gary Ball

Mendocino Environmental Center

Mendocino

Joseph and Susan Bower

Citizens for Better Forestry

Hayfork

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on H.R. 858, the ‘‘Quincy Library

Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997.’’ I am accompanied

today by Regional Forester Lynn Sprague, and Supervisors Mark Madrid of the

Plumas National Forest and Kent Connaughton of the Lassen National Forest.

The Department of Agriculture supports the goals of H.R. 858. We applaud the

work of the Quincy Library Group (QLG) and its willingness to enter into a constructive dialogue to make the bill workable. We are close to that goal. Just last

week, Forest Service officals from the Plumas National Forest, representatives from

QLG, and a representative of Congressman Herger sat down to discuss the bill. The

discussion was constructive and substantial progress was made. However, more

time is needed to fully consider all of the issues raised by the bill before the Administration can fully endorse it.

Management of the National Forests

The world is much more complex today than it was even 20 years ago. And nowhere is that complexity more evident than in the management of our national forests. I don’t need to belabor the challenges we continue to face in satisfying competing demands that are placed on this resource. Yet, the prescription for management of these forests was laid down 90 years ago by the first Chief of the Forest

Service, Gifford Pinchot. I would like to quote Pinchot because his views are directly

relevant to the issues we are addressing today. Pinchot believed that the key principle in using national forests was management by the people. He said:

National forests are made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed by the people. They are made, not to give the officers in charge of them a

chance to work out theories, but to give the people who use them, and those who

are affected by their use, a chance to work out their own best profit. This means

that if National Forests are going to accomplish anything worth while the people

must know all about them and must take a very active part in their management.

The officers are paid by the people to act as their agents and to see that all the
49

resources of the Forests are used in the best interest of everyone concerned. What

the people as a whole want will be done. To do it it is necessary that the people

carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and then take a very active

part in seeing that they get it.

There are many great interests on the National Forests which sometimes conflict

a little. They must all be made to fit into one another so that the machine runs

smoothly as a whole. It is often necessary for one man to give way a little here,

another a little there. But by giving way a little at present they both profit by it

a great deal in the end....

In these few words, Pinchot captured the essence of the Quincy Library Group

and why Secretary Glickman and this Administration believe that QLG is worthy

of continued support.

The QLG, was formed in 1993 by a three-county alliance of elected officials, timber industry, workers, union representatives, local environmentalists and citizens.

The QLG has collaborated to resolve longstanding controversies over the management of public forest lands on the Plumas, Larsen, and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. They have developed an agreed upon plan that

addresses various aspects of forest management including timber salvage sales, fire

hazard reduction, watershed and riparian area restoration, monitoring and forest

planning. Most importantly, they have followed Pinchot’s dictum that compromise

is needed to fit the pieces into a unified whole crafting a program that is generally

acceptable to all. In recognition of the importance of this effort, Secretary Glickman

has prioritized funding for these three forests to support forest activities consistent

with the QLG proposal and forest plan standards and guides.

The Condition in the Northern Sierra Nevada Range

Before turning to the specifics of H.R. 858, I would like to review briefly the findings of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). SNEP was a team of independent scientists tasked by Congress with preparing a scientific review of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem. Their final report was transmitted to Congress in

June, 1996.

This team of eminent scientists found that the Sierra Nevada range has become

highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. This situation reflects the virtual exclusion of low- to moderate-severity fire that has affected the structure and composition

of most Sierra Nevada vegetation. The resulting forests can be characterized as having denser stands, primarily in small and medium size classes of shade-tolerant and

fire-sensitive tree species. Fuels have become more continuous from the ground

through the upper canopy. Selective cutting of large overstory trees when combined

with the relatively moist and warm climate of the 20th Century appears to have

reinforced this trend by producing conditions favorable to the establishment of tree

seedlings and other plant species. When coupled with the exclusion of fire, most

stands in the Sierra Nevada range have experienced increased mortality from the

cumulative effects of competition, drought, insects, disease and, in some cases, ambient ozone air pollution. This has created conditions favorable to intense and severe

fires that are more damaging to the ecosystem, are more expensive to suppress, and

pose a greater threat to life and property.

The SNEP report describes a number of approaches to reduce the susceptibility

of the the Sierran range to catastrophic fire. These include substantially reducing

the potential for large high-severity wildfires in both wildlands and the wildland/

urban intermix, and restoring historic ecosystem functions of frequent low- and

moderate-severity fire. This can be accomplished by establishing defensible fuel profile zones characterized by relatively large trees with considerable diversity in ages,

sizes, and distributions of trees. The key feature would be the general openness and

discontinuity of crown fuels; both horizontally and vertically. Once these zones have

been established, a program of prescribed fire could then be introduced restoring the

historic fire regime.

Contents of OLG Proposal

The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997

would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated

lands of three National Forests—the Plumas, Lassen and portions of the Tahoe National Forests. The purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate the effectiveness

of the resource management activities directed in the bill. These activities are: (1)

construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel breaks on not less than 40,000

but not more than 60,000 acres per year; and (2) implementation on an acreage

rather than volume basis, of uneven-aged forest management prescriptions utilizing

individual tree selections and group selections to achieve a desired future condition

of an all-age, multi-story, fire resistant forest.
50

The pilot project would terminate on the later of the following: 5 years after date

of enactment of this bill or when the land resource management plans for the three

forests have been revised or amended as appropriate.

This proposal, in effect, would implement key aspects of the management regime

laid out by SNEP. Although much of this bill could be implemented administratively, we see substantial merit in testing these strategies. We also believe we can

learn from this pilot and that our work with QLG can serve as a model for other

communities in addressing local concerns without the necessity of site-specific legislation.

Concerns With the Bill

Upon a first reading of the bill, we recognized a need to clarify its language. We

were concerned that the bill could be read as exempting pilot project activities from

the requirements of various environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Clean Air and

Water Acts. Additionally, we believed the bill should explicitly state that any pilot

project must also be consistent with guidelines for the management of the California

Spotted Owl (CASPO). We did not see how this proposal could serve as a true demonstration if these conditions were not met. We have been assured by representatives of QLG and Congressman Herger that this is was their intent. They have

agreed to language that would make clear that existing laws must be followed along

with CASPO guidelines.

We were also concerned that the procedures for designating catastrophic event

areas were not in compliance with current policy for public notice and comment

under NEPA regulations. We were assured this was not intended and have reached

agreement on language to cure this problem.

Additionally, we believe the pilot program should be subjected to a science-based

evaluation at the mid-point and conclusion of the program. This evaluation should

help to determine if the assumptions underlying the program activities are valid.

We also have remaining concerns with the funding provisions in the bill. In short,

we already have the authority to allocate funds and, if necessary, reallocate, under

the guidelines of the Appropriations Committees. We will continue to support the

QLG effort at the maximum level within the constraints of overall funding resources. We have proposed several funding areas in the FY 1998 budget that, if enacted, could increase the overall level of resources available for the QLG program

and similar work in other National Forests with similar fire prone characteristics.

Specifically, the FY 1998 budget proposes a significant increase in fuels management under our wildland fire management proposal. This proposal would make fuels

management a significant part of the overall fire management program and would

balance the resources necessary to achieve long term savings in fire suppression

costs. We have also proposed increases for timber stand improvement activities and

forest vegetation management. And finally, we will shortly share with you a legislative proposal to crate a new permanent fund, called the ‘‘Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance Fund’’. If enacted, this fund would also provide additional resources for reducing fire hazards and improving the structure and health of timber

stands. I hope that you will support these proposals, and recognize that without additional resources for the types of activities the QLG bill prescribes, reallocation

within a fixed overall budget is an inevitable requirement. Such a reallocation can

have unintended consequences for other resources in our national forests.

Summary

During the Forest Conference in April, 1993, President Clinton challenged natural

resource dependent communities to develop collaborative and locally-based solutions

to controversies surrounding public land management. The science-based assessment commissioned by Congress recommended implementing programs that reduce

the potential for catastrophic fires. The QLG is an exemplary illustration of democratic processes at work in achieving these goals. The pilot program has the potential to enhance the health and productivity of the affected national forests, to help

those communities that depend on these forests for their well being and, perhaps

most importantly, to demonstrate that these forests can be managed in a way that

satisfies the needs of broad cross-ection of forest users. For these reasons, the Administration in committed to working with the Committee, QLG, and other interested parties to move forward with this pilot program.

This concludes my prepared remarks. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
51

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS C. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF TIMBERLANDS, SIERRA PACIFIC

INDUSTRIES

Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Nelson. I am a forester for Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding, California,

and am here today as a founding member of the Quincy Library Group (QLG). It

is our hope that you will help us implement the proposals of this group by supporting the QLG bill recently introduced by Congressman Herger, HR 858. I would like to take this opportunity, for the record, to thank a number of people for their invaluable assistance. First, I wish to thank Mr. Herger for his leadership

in carrying our bill. Next, I would like to thank Secretary of Agriculture Glickman

and Undersecretary Lyons for their continued support (especially their financial

support) of the silvicultural prescriptions described in the Quincy Library Group’s

Agreement of 1993, which has been accurately translated into HR 858. I would also

like to acknowledge and thank both Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their ongoing

efforts to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.

The ideas embodied in HR 858 actually started in November of 1992 when the

three of us sitting here at this panel met together for the first time. It was a most

unusual meeting and, between the three of us, we brought to the table a complete

spectrum of opposing viewpoints on National Forest management issues in California. And yet, we soon found that we also shared a number of common viewpoints—we all care deeply about the stability and wellbeing of our communities, our

forested surroundings, and the legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren.

Moreover, we all agree that the current management strategies of the US Forest

Service for this part of California are unacceptable to each of the diverse viewpoints

we represent—‘‘business as usual’’ will not meet anyone’s needs.

After several of these initial meetings with just the three of us, we decided to expand our discussions and bring in more ideas and participants - we wanted to see

if others in the community shared our concerns. It soon became apparent that we

shared with other community members not only a common set of concerns, but a

common set of remedies. And when I use the term ‘‘we’’ in this case, I do not refer

to just others within the forest products industry. ‘‘We’’, in the context of the Quincy

Library Group, means loggers, local environmental leaders, teachers, county government, organized labor, ranchers, road crews, fly fishers, biologists, and even retired

airline pilots who have developed an interest in fuels management strategies. Given

this strong community support, we soon developed and agreed upon the QLG Agreement of 1993. In many respects, this was our response to President Clinton’s request at the Portland Forestry Conference—to ‘‘insist on collaboration, not confrontation’’.

A central issue that binds us together is befitting our appearance today before

this Subcommittee. That overarching issue is our concern for the health of the National Forests which surround our communities. We are deeply concerned with the

very real and very ominous risk for catastrophic wildfires within these forests. To

demonstrate this, I’d like to call your attention to a position paper the Quincy Library Group put out some time ago, which is attached to your copies of my testimony. In this paper, we have tried to show that the present explosive situation—

the potential for significant, catastrophic wildfires—is getting worse, not better. At

the current pace (without implementation of the QLG bill) it will take these forests

180 years before they even begin to reverse this trend.

The Quincy Library Group has designed a comprehensive strategy to combat the

rising risk of catastrophic wildfires—that strategy is included in the actions authorized in HR 858. The prime objective of our initial strategy is to isolate individual

watersheds (8-12 thousand acres each) with ‘‘shaded fuelbreaks’’. These fuelbreaks

would be designed as quarter-mile swaths that are thinned along ridgetops and

major roads. They are not the bare? ground fuelbreaks commonly associated with

powerlines and gas lines. Our intent is not to stop major fires as they hit these

fuelbreaks, but to force the fire down out of the crowns of the trees so that firefighters have a better chance to control it. Put another way, our goal is not to stop

the occurrence of wildfires (that’s not realistic in the lightning-prone Western states)

but to hold them to 10 thousand acres, not 150 thousand.

Even using our strategy, it will take the US Forest Service 20 to 30 years to completely reverse the current wildfire risk trends, but the existing risks can be significantly reduced after five years with implementation of HR 858. While we understand that several urban-based environmental groups have criticized our proposals

as being ‘‘too large’’ in scope for their liking, those of us who live next door to these

fuel-laden forests cannot accept a slower pace and higher risks. The enormity of this

problem, and the severity of its consequences, demands an immediate and comprehensive plan. We have looked at other ideas, including the ‘‘status quo’’, and we
52

believe that the QLG proposal is the best, most effective response possible. In light

of the forest health conditions throughout the West, we do not see our proposals as

‘‘too large’’.

By now it is probably quite obvious why a forest products company that is determined to stay in California might enter into negotiations like those of the Quincy

Library Group. Implementation of HR 858 would mean five years of economic certainty as merchantable materials are removed on 50 thousand acres of National

Forest land each year to stay on track with the QLG fuelbreak objectives. From the

standpoint of a privately held, family-run business in California (with 12 sawmills

and 3000+ employees) it is this type of certainty which encourages investments in

rural communities. It is distinctly different from the existing policies for management of the National Forests in the West, whereby investment decisions must be

based on expected outputs that change weekly, sometimes daily, and rarely change

for the better.

The QLG proposals embodied in HR 858 have received a certain amount of criticism recently, most notably from national preservation groups. I would urge you to

study these criticisms in light of the growing fear these urban- based groups seem

to have toward coalitions which include their locally-based affiliates. We welcome

the support of any and all of these nationally-based groups in our pursuit to pass

HR 858. To that end, I should point out that we have suggested numerous changes

to the original language of the Quincy Library Group bill already. These changes

were made prior to the formal introduction of HR 858 by Congressman Herger and

all the other sponsors, and were at the request of national, urban-based environmental groups as well as representatives of the US Forest Service.

We have tried to accomodate these groups, and will continue to work with anyone

dedicated to the implementation of our proposals. But we cannot agree to changes

that would jeopardize the original intent and integrity of our 1993 agreement, and

we hope that you will be cognizant of this as HR 858 goes through mark-up, amendment proposals, and hearings.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I urge your support of this bill, so that

we might begin the long, uphill road to restoration of forest health within the

boundaries of the Quincy Library Group. We are eager to begin.

FUELS MANAGEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP POSITION PAPER

‘‘The fire regime has changed from frequent, low intensity fires to infrequent, high

intensity stand replacement fires’’ (CASPO Interim Guidelines, U. S. Forest Service,

1993)

‘‘Extreme fire behavior and resistance to control will be the norm, rather than the

exception.’’ (Regional Forester, U. S. Forest Service R-5, July 1992)

BACKGROUND

Decades of aggressive fire suppression and other recent activities have changes

fire regime of the forests in the northern Sierras. Fire history studies in the Sierras

show that the frequency of relatively low intensity fires ranged from 5 to 30 years

in the mixes conifer and eastside pine forests.

For example. consider the effect on approximately 935,000 acres in the Plumas

National Forest. If you assume an average pre-European settlement fire frequency

of 20 years, it implies that 47,000 acres would have burned each year. In contrast,

dunag a recent 20-year period 4,100 acres per year were actually burned on the

Plumas

Until recently this 90% reduction of acreage burned per year was considered a

measure of great success for the fire suppression policy. Unfortunately, we are now

being awakened to some hard facts:

•The pre-European settlement fires were of low average intensity, while recent

fires burn at very much higher and increasing average intensity.

•High intensity translates to high costs for initial attack, higher costs for sustained attack on more numerous and larger escaped fires, and very high costs for

loss of tangible and intangible assets in the forest and communities.

•The long-term effect of fire suppression is an accumulation of fuels and the

growth of too many understory trees of a species that is not fire adapted for longterm health in that location given climatic variability. These fuels and fire ladders

are certain to support increasing numbers of large fires and certain to result in catastrophe unless the fuel is reduced and the understory is thinned.

FIRE COSTS
53

The Forest Service fire suppression program is paid for in two main categories:

Fire Protection (FP) and Fire Fighting (FF). FP funds are for the basic costs of

equipment and personnel, while FF funds support the emergency expenses of actually fighting a fire. Recent FF expenditures on the Plumas Forest have ranged from

$0.5 to $9 million per year (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Plumas National Forest wildfire suppression program costs.

The occasional spike in the graph cawed by one or two large fires that occur every

few years is even more significant than average yearly costs on a single Forest like

the Plumas. (Table 1) These spikes in the cost line are the equivalent in FF terms

to the Regional Forest’s statement, ‘‘Extreme fire behavior and resistance to control

will be the norm rather than the exception.’’

Table 1. Summary of costs associated with recent Plumas National Forest

wildfires.

Another factor that contributes to the rising trend in total fire costs is the movement of more and more people into the Sierras. Inevitably more people mean more

sources of ignition, greater loss of assets and risk to life when a fire escapes control,

and the necessity for diversion of fire-fighting resources from the forest to the urban

interface when catastrophe threatens. The actual cost of wildfire goes well above

and rises steeper than the Forest Service shows in its FP and FF accounts.

Unless the trend toward larger and more intense fires is turned around, it is inevitable that a conflagration of multiple out-of-control fires will overwhelm any fire

fighting capability that we can afford or are likely to provide. Damage in that fire

will be on a scale such that neither the forest ecosystem nor the communities that

depend on it will be likely to recover during a single lifetime.

FUELS MANAGEMENT

The Forest Service now acknowledges that its focus on fire suppression has led

to three specific hazards:

1. The accumulation of a large fuel overload on the ground.

2. Crowding of small trees in the understory, creating a fire ladder that carries

ground fire into the crowns of large trees, thus converting ordinary fires into standdestroying fires.

3. Invasion of the understory by excessive numbers of shade-tolerant trees (principally white fir), which dominate the competition for nutrients and soil moisture,
54

thereby adding the mortality of large trees to the fuel load and making the

overstory trees even less able to survive crown fires. These hazards can be reduced only by reducing the load of dead and dying fuel and by thinning the understory. Unfortunately, to date the Forest Service program

for fuels reduction in these forests has been only a token effort at best. For example,

since 1982 the Plumas National Forest has treated about 600 to 900 acres per year

under its ‘‘natural fuels’’ program as part of fire protection, and another 4,500 acres

per year under the ‘‘brush disposal’’ program associated with timber harvest. At that

rate it would take about 180 years to work through the whole forest. But given that fact, how can the fuel load ever be reduced and the unterstory thinned at a rate which will significantly change our current inevitable course toward catastrophe?

The simple answer is that we have no other choice. It isn’t a question of whether,

but of how, where, and when to begin the Fuel treatments. Do we start to work on

this pre-catastrophe or post-catastrophe?

A more realistic answer is we know the job can be done because in many pervious years the amount of material that needs to be removed actually has been removed.

The main difference is this: In previous years most of the material removed was in

logs from the largest trees, leaving behind most of the logging slash to add to the

fuel load, while in future years, say for the next 30 or so, most of the material must

be removed as small logs from understory trees, and biomass, thus reducing the fuel

load, not adding to it. A thirty-year fuels program is not a very attractive proposition; it is not adequate given the ‘‘catastrophic’’ threat and it is not realistic to count on sustaining public

or political interest in a ‘‘crash’’ program of that length. Fortunately, Quincy Library

Group (QLG) can offer a considerable improvement on the bare-bones 30-year program. The QLG proposes that all sales should laid out in patterns that are fully in- tended with natural fuels treatments in a strategic fire protection plan.

STRATEGY

1The QLG strategic fire protection plan has three requirements:

1. Four years of very high priority.

2. During those four years, natural fuels treatments and sales of thinnings, sal- vage, and biomass should be done in strips of approximately quarter-mile width according to a prescription that makes these steps defensible fire lines, meets the intent of CASPO (Califomia Spotted Owl) guidelines, and does the least possible damage to other ecosystem values. 3. The acreage treated each year should be at least l/32 of the total forest.

In practice the strips (similar in concept to shaded fuel breaks) should follow ridge lines, valley bottoms, and convenient roads in a pattern that would isolate all major

watersheds (average size of 10 to 12 thousand acres) within the four years.

The intent of the CASPO guidelines would be met because they are based on the

concept that intense wildfire is a major short-term threat to owls (and by implication to other wildlife and ecosystem values). Under the QLG strategy there is maximum protection with mimimum disturbance to owls or other ecosystem components

because: (1) almost all of the treated strips would be along existing roadways, (2)

lower density of snags and large down woody debris within the strips could be compensated for by leaving more of those materials farther off roads during subsequent

treatments in those areas, and (3) the included roadways would permit efficient removal of the materials with minimal disturbance.

After four years, with a network of fundamental protection in place, a somewhat

different long-term strategy would be phased in: you could continue to use strips

to divide large areas or areas with high value and/or great fire risk, but most of

the remaining forest would be treated more efficiently in areas, not strips. In either

case, fuels treatment should continue at the rate of at least 1/32 ofthe forest area

each year.

CONCLUSIONS

What we have lait out are three possible courses:

1. Do nothing different, just wait for ‘‘the big one’’.

2. Increase fuels work, but follow conventional practice that limits strategic placement of fuel breaks to what you can accomplish under the ‘‘natural fuels’’ budgets,

and confines other fuel removal to sales areas designated in the conventional manner. This would eventually get the job done, but in scattered units that for many

years would protect very little area except the actual acres treated.

3. Increase fuels work, and do both ‘‘natural fuels’’ treatment and timber sales in

patterns and under prescriptions that support the QLG Strategic Fire Protection

Plan. That is, the sales would be based on understory thinning and biomass removal

in a network of strips. This will more quickly reduce the risk of catastrophic wild55

fire, and at the same time make suppression efforts against the remaining fires

more effective and less costly.

The differences among these three cases can be illustrated by three lines on a

graph of cost trends over time (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Relative cost for three fuels treatment strategies.

In Figure 2, relative costs are scaled to reflect an assumption that the FP cost

remains constant for the whole period.

Curve #1 shows no change of strategy. Fire suppression costs, and the loss of forest and non-forest resources continues to rise. The only likely break would be a huge

spike when ‘‘the big one’’ occurs, followed perhaps by subsidence to a level that

would support fire protection for a moonscape forest.

Curve #2 represents the shape to be expected if Fuel Treatment (FT) work is done

in a way that follows historic precedent. It would initially cost money that cannot

be saved by immediate reduction of other fire protection costs and fire losses. Eventually, however, these costs and losses would be reduced far enough that total cost

would fall below the ‘‘no treatment’’ projection, and from then on a continuing return on investment would be achieved. Until most of the forest had been treated,

there would not necessarily be many connections among treated areas, so for at

least the first half of the period any reduction in FF or Loss costs would be gradual,

and there would be only gradual reduction in the risk of catastrophe.

Curve #3 is the shape we believe the QLG strategy would produce. Again you

have to add Fuel Treatment (FT) costs at first, but a network of treated strips would

reduce the average size of large fires and facilitate the fighting of smaller fires, so

the reduction of fire costs and fire losses would be earlier and steeper, with a

quicker crossover to profit on the investment, and much earlier and more significant

reduction in the risk of catastrophe.

BOTTOM LINE

There is a strong temptation to avoid the initial cost of fuels reduction and understory thinning, because it is not easy to show that a particular catastrophic fire

could actually be avoided. On the other hand, we can’t escape the certainty that our

current course leads inevitably to catastrophic fire.

It’s a classic case of ‘‘Penny Wise Pound Foolish’’. We can easily look thrifty in

the short run by avoiding the ‘‘penny’’ of immediate cost to implement the QLG

strategy. But that won’t look so wise when a catastrophe hits that could otherwise
56

have been avoided or made smaller by spending those early pennies on fuel reduction. At that point it will look foolish indeed to be spending many ‘‘pounds’’ on futile

efforts to suppress the conflagration.

STATEMENT OF BILL COATES, PLUMAS COUNTY SUPERVISOR; PAST PRESIDENT OF THE

RURAL COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA; THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA; AND THE 16 WESTERN STATES SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Dear Members of the Committee:

My statement can be encapsulated within three statements: We attended. We listened. We attempted to do.

We attended President Clinton’s Northwest Forest Summit Conference in Portland at his invitation.

We listened when he told us to get out of the courtrooms and into the meeting

rooms to work out our differences locally. We listened when we were told that if

we would just get on the same songsheet, (the environmental community and the

logging community) that the USFS could act on our plan.

We came back from Portland and attempted to follow President Clinton’s request.

We asked questions, studied, argued, studied, debated, and finally agreed. We used

the environmentalist’s ideas about land base and silvicultural methods, for which

they had action brought against the USFS to force implementation. We mixed in

the forestry methods of the Collins Pine Company, where we had 80 years of solid

‘‘on the ground’’ proof of forest health results. We asked for the best science available and put it in the plan. We walked away from salvage logging where it broke

our agreement. We opened up our meetings to all and asked for a solid impartial

monitoring plan. We adopted SAT guidelines for riparian areas, folded in a stream

restoration element that is drawing acclaim visitors from around the world, and

helped design the DFP2 system called for in SNEP to reduce the loss of species, old

growth areas, and habitat to increasing frequent catastrophic wildfire events. This

litany could go on.

We feel like we have come to Congress and to the President with an incredible

gift. Instead of gold bars, it is an agreement. It is what was asked of us.

The rest is up to you. Will you hesitate, study, endlessly temporize and debate?

Or will you seize the opportunity this gift affords you, and act decisively to begin

returning our forests to healthy conditions, with stable communities and a broad national public support as a very desirable by-product?

In addition to answering our declining forest health condition, as outlined in the

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, there is another important condition at risk here.

It is the condition of the decision making process.

If this local grassroots effort at solving problems isn’t acted upon, after having

been requested at the highest level, then what other collaborative effort will want

to proceed? Other groups will know of our 750 meetings, the loss of family time and

personal expense, the agony of bureaucratic process and the ecstasy of fire and fuel

and stream restoration and monitoring and better recreation and cleaner air and

more water production and healthier animal and plant populations almost—almost

coming together. Our advice would have to be, ‘‘Don’t even start.’’

Finally, I’d like to thank this committee with your patience for our bipartisan nature. As you know we aren’t liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, but

rather a mixture of all. Our process is exactly what is described in every political

campaign for federal and state office, and then not too often seen again ‘‘on the

streets.’’ I would especially like to thank Congressmen Herger, and Fazio, Senator’s

Feinstein and Boxer, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Rominger, and Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Lyons for their support. Their encouragement at key points in time when we have

tired, was crucial.

Thank you.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73