280 



TULE RIVER CONSERVftHCY 209 542 2196 



its low rainfall and shallow, erosive soils. 5NP has been logged tnurh 

 faster than it can poGsibly sustain. On'oitc reforestation studies reveal 

 units tliat have been replanted repeatedly to no avail and others not 

 replanted at all. While SNP has been logged using clcarcut methods since 

 196&, Che U.S. Forest Service's Land Management Plan has a glaring lack of 

 information about the performance of plantations, about sites that might be 

 unsuit.od to clearcutting or logging, about the growth rate of the 

 plantations that appeared to be successful, and growth and yield 

 information specific to SNP. If trees are not growing back as predicted, 

 then all other predictions of impacts due to logging (such as forest 

 habitat types, impacts to wildlife, lical rates of visual and recreation 

 impacts, watershetl imparts, soil loss, and long-term job security) are not 

 valid. Tf many plantations must be continuously replanted with seedlings 

 in order to appear (on paper) to be reforested, Chen the lega] mandate to 

 log only as much as can be regrown and sustained over time is being 

 violated . 



In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service (USPS) published a Reforestation Report 

 that was reijuired by the Mediated Settlement Agreement. This report was to 

 provide basic valid information about the reforestation program and about 

 suitability of sites. It was found this document uses unscientific nethods 

 to look only for information that would support the conclusions that the 

 USPS wanted to reach, i.e., that plantation performance is successful and 

 that there is no difference in ability to stock the widely varying sites of 

 SNP. 



Professional foresters were hired to review this document (members of th« 

 Public Forestry Foundation and James DePree) and have written critiques of 

 this report. Both of chose reviews came to the same conclusion: the USPS 

 still haa not met its obligation to provide sound scientific information 



