224 



I thought it was interesting here, in earlier SNEP meetings we 

 had discussed the possibiUty of seven to eight management sce- 

 narios for the Sierras. I am not sure whether I heard Mr. Aune 

 right, but it seems like we have got to a point where we have about 

 two or three management scenarios. I am concerned about that. It 

 may be worth follow-up to figure out how many management sce- 

 narios we are talking about. 



Cost was of concern; the CBO estimated a study would cost about 

 $2 million. I think to date the Forest Service and scientific commit- 

 tee spent $7 million. And they have produced a lot of documents, 

 some of which are very scientific and complex. And from a policy 

 standpoint, I am sure part of the reason we have suffered from 

 having SNEP released in its final form, is that they are very dif- 

 ficult to assimilate into a policy document that has some degree of 

 coherency. 



Relationship of the assessment to National Forest Service Plans 

 I think is a totally appropriate question. We have just gone 

 through a CALOWL process which has taken 3 years to complete 

 and is now a year late. We know that SNEP relied on the 

 CALOWL data base, the mapping that was involved and a lot of 

 information with respect to vegetation types. 



From the outset it seemed like the CALOWL process as an eco- 

 system and landscape process and the SNEP process were follow- 

 ing parallel courses. I am not sure where we are at the present 

 time. It appears that the CALOWL report itself is being held in 

 abeyance while the SNEP report is going to be submitted to the 

 Congress. 



I find this extremely unfortunate. We have had an interim period 

 of 2 years in which we have seen a number of sawmills close as 

 the Forest Service struggles and seeks direction for land manage- 

 ment. 



In summary, I would like to say, what do we do in terms of the 

 next steps? I think the key issue here gets back to Congressman 

 Merger's concern; what do we do with the CALOWL Environmental 

 Impact Statement? 



I would like to encourage you to pursue the line of questioning 

 you have with respect to the CALOWL EIS and urge that the For- 

 est Service get on with that document and get on with land man- 

 agement under that document. It has had full public review, full 

 public and political input, and I think it is time for it to move for- 

 ward. 



The SNEP document, we all recognize, will become new science 

 and probably will cause some reflection and look back at the 

 CALOWL document, but I am confident that the science in support 

 of the CALOWL document will in essence be supported by SNEP 

 and I see no reason to put the two in relationship to one another. 



I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I have included a 

 lot of additional material, a copy of H.R. 6013, which originally au- 

 thorized the SNEP report, along with correspondence. I have copies 

 of our "Sustainable Forest" issues here which will give you some 

 background of where Georgia-Pacific and the forest products indus- 

 try is in the future. 



[Prepared statement of Mr. Bill Snyder may be found at the end 

 of hearing.] 



