264 



current land management planning process. The first problem was hou lo deal with threats b> 

 various groups to petition for listing of the California spotted owl as threatened or endangered if 

 the Forest Service implemented the land management plans. The second problem was how to 

 deal with old growth issues in a meaningful way. 



In response to the first issue the Forest Service developed a strategy for dealing with the 

 management of Spotted owls in the Sierras. The first step was the development of interim 

 guidelines which have been in effect while a full Envirormiental Impact Statement was being 

 developed. The interim guidelines were originally designed to last for two years. We are 

 presently in our third year, and can see the light at the end of the turmel as the CALOWL EIS is 

 ready for signature. 



The second issue was caught up in the debate over pacific northwest old growth when 

 H.R. 4899 was amended to include California national forests outside the Klamath Province. As 

 originally proposed the bill included the scientific study of old growth in the Sierras which 

 became the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). Concern by several members of the 

 House Agriculture Committee quickly surfaced that restricting the study to old growth alone 

 would not povide sufficient information to recommend a comprehensive management strategy 

 for the Sierras. The Agriculture Committee accepted a compromise bill H.R. 6013 which was 

 designed to study all serai stage ecosystems authored by Representative Panetta and California 

 committee members, Representatives Dooley and Lehman. The bill passed the Agriculture 

 Committee but failed in the Natural Resources Committee. Recognizing the importance of the 

 study given the escalating debate over land management in the Sierras, Rep. Panetta in the 

 Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill of 1993, included language that 

 authorized the study portion of H.R. 6013. SNEP was officially underway. 



Since the begirming SNEP has been a process with which we have had misgivings. It has 

 not been subject to FACA and as such, is not a process which has relied on public input. We 

 welcome this oversight process as a means to raise concerns we have had with the process since 

 its beginning. In response to your letter we will respond to the questions you raised in your 

 invitation letter of May 13, 1996 in order as follows: 



