22 



Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown. 



Mr. Brown. May I apologize if I appear to be taking advantage 

 of my position on the committee here, merely because I am. 

 [Laughter.] 



A couple of points I would like to have made clear. The mediated 

 settlement, as I understand it, expires in 1995 and is supposed to 

 be replaced by a permanent plan from the Forest Service. Am I cor- 

 rect in this? 



Mr. Lehman. That is my understanding. 



Mr. Brown. So we are not talking about a permanent plan estab- 

 lished by the mediated settlement; we are talking about a tem- 

 porary arrangement that expires next year. 



Mr. Lehman. Well, in the same fashion that we sunset legisla- 

 tion around here, if it is a date certain that that happens. But that 

 was done so that they could look at the results of it — I think that 

 was prudent. 



One thing that Cal and I have considered is putting the mediated 

 settlement into law. 



Mr. Dooley. If I can comment on that, the mediated settlement 

 agreement, as I understand it, was to be adopted as part of the for- 

 est management plan and would in fact be in place until a new 

 management plan was to be adopted, which was in fact going to 

 go beyond 1995, I believe until the year — I think it would be an- 

 other 10 years, if I am correct. 



So it does not expire in 1995. It actually has at least another 10 

 years, at which point there would be a new management plan that 

 would be developed that would, hopefully, involve another medi- 

 ated settlement that could provide for the management of the for- 

 est. 



Mr. Thomas of California. Yes. Just to elaborate on that, because 

 my colleague is correct, it is open-ended for that time period until 

 a management plan is put into place. It is in effect until another 

 one replaces it. 



I would say that the process by which it was developed is prob- 

 ably more important than the time line for how long it would be 

 in existence, because it was an effort to change the old ways, and 

 it was a positive one, which we are undermining by this legislation. 



Mr. Brown. Mr. Thomas, the Forest Management Act provides 

 for a public process for comment on any forest management plans 

 that are developed. The Forest Service has not gone through that 

 process yet, as I understand it. There will be ample opportunity not 

 only for environmental groups but for all public groups to have 

 input to the process by which the final plan is adopted. 



Mr. Thomas of California. Are you telling me, then, that your 

 legislation is premature? 



Mr. Brown. No, I am not telling you that. As a matter of fact, 

 I think it is highly mature, not premature, in view of the failure 

 of the Forest Service to develop a plan and the historical degrada- 

 tion of the forest over the years from the lack of an adequate man- 

 agement plan. 



One additional question, and this is somewhat of a personal mat- 

 ter. I understand that you gentlemen represent the forest, and oth- 

 ers that have a close relationship to it. But I also understand that 

 the annual gross revenue from the recreational use of the forest is 



( I 



