Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	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


	<snowflake>


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	40-051 cc WASHINGTON : 1997



	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

	DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
	W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
	JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
	WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
	KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
	BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
	HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
	Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
	WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
	JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
	JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
	ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
	JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
	RICK HILL, Montana Islands
	BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
	MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

	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 MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
	JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ---------- ----------
	RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
	BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
	Bill Simmons, Staff Director
	Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
	Jeff Petrich, Democratic Counsel



	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


	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.
	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.
	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 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 Washington-
	forced 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 delivers 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.
	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 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.
	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 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 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.
	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 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 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, high-severity wildfires in both wildlands
	in what we call the wildland-urban 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 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 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 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 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.
	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.
	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 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 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 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
	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 overall 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.
	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.
	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 Director 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
	well-being 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 airline 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 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 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 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 long-time 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-
	the-ground 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, 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.
	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.
	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 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.
	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 agreement 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 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.
	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 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 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.
	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.
	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 unacceptably 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
	cornerstone 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 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

	4Senator Barbara Boxer
	Senator Dianne Feinstein
	United States Senate
	Washington, D.C. 20510

	4re: 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 management
	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

	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 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.
	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.

	------


	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 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:
	<bullet>The pre-European settlement fires were of low
	average intensity, while recent fires burn at very much higher
	and increasing average intensity.
	<bullet>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.
	<bullet>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 long-term
	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
	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).
	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.001

	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.
	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.002

	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 stand-destroying
	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,

	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 intended 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, salvage, 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 wild-

	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).
	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.003

	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

	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.

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.004

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.005

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.006

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.007

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.008

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.009

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.010

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.011

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.012

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.013

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.014

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.015

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.016

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.017

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.018

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.019

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.020

	<all>

	</pre></body></html>