279 



Chairman, Committee on National 

 Parks, Forests, & Public Lands 

 George Brown, 



Member of Congress 

 Sidney R. Yates, 

 Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior 

 & Related Agencies 

 Charlie Rose, 

 Chairman, Subcommittee on Spe- 

 cialty Crops & Natural Resources 

 Leon P. Panetta, 

 Member of Congress 



Congress of the United States, 



House of Representatives, 

 Washington, DC. 



Feb. 7, 1995. 

 Mr. Jack Ward Thomas 

 Chief, 



U.S. Forest Service, 

 Department of Agriculture, 

 Washington, DC. 



Dear Chief Thomas: We are writing to express our concern about the direction 

 of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. As you know, Congress appropriated 

 $150,000 for this study as a part of the Fiscal Year 1994 Interior Appropriations 

 bill (H.R. 5503). During debate on that bill, the Forest Service was instructed to fol- 

 low the language contained in H.R. 6013. Since H.R. 6013 failed to become law, the 

 direction of they study has been the subject of some uncertainty. 



It is our understanding that the scientific team is coming close to completing the 

 study and we wanted to ensure that the final product can be a constructive tool in 

 formulating policy to manage the Sierra Nevada Range. 



Specifically, we expect the study to includes: (1) a delineation of the various Sierra 

 Nevada Forests Ecosystems; (2) an inventory of each ecosystem's land and re- 

 sources; (3) and evaluation of each ecosystem's health conditions and trends and 

 identification of affecting processes, activities and other factors such as drought, 

 fire, timber harvesting, and residential development; (4) recommendations for alter- 

 native management strategies; and (5) recommendations for Sequoia ecosystem 

 management. We do not expect the reports to include scientific mapping rec- 

 ommendations. 



Of key concern to us is whether late successional reserves are necessary to main- 

 tain the health of the Sierra Nevada Forest ecosystems. The SNEP progress report 

 issued in May 1994 stated, "Efforts to reduce catastrophic fire risk to late succes- 

 sional forest stands, and to maintain key ecosystem processes and biodiversity, are 

 much more likely to require active management in the Sierra Nevada." We expect 

 development of alternative management strategies to be predicated upon that as- 

 sessment. Alternative management strategies should include land reserves only if 

 reserves are determined to be necessary for the maintenance of the health of the 

 Sierra Nevada Forest ecosystem. 



Recognizing the possible problems regarding compliant with FACA, the authors 

 of H.R. 6013 provided for an exemption. However, that bill did not become law and 

 the exemption has not been legislated. Therefore, the study team must comply with 

 FACA. 



We would also like to reiterate the intent of the Sponsors of H.R. 6013 that pri- 

 vate land management strategies should not be made a part of the study. We 

 strongly agree with that premise. 



Fingdly, we would appreciate as part of your response to this letter a status report 

 on the study. It is possible that we will be requesting a briefing on the progress 

 of the study, but would appreciate a written update. 



We hope that the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project provides Congress with sound 

 science that can be used to establish a sensible management strategy for this impor- 

 tant area. 



Thank you for your attention to this matter. 



