35 



repulsed me for their obvious political motive and lack of profes- 

 sional basis." 



Skipping down in the letter. "I conclude that the Cal-Owl team 

 has had adequate access to current scientific information and has 

 seriously reviewed the relevant information compiled in SNEP re- 

 ports. I find it disgraceful that the stewardship of our Sierra Na- 

 tional Forests should become a political fate and the professional 

 efforts of scientists and managers disregarded." 



Is it safe to assume that you disagree with her observations? 



Under Secretary Lyons. I would say that Dr. Millar is entitled 

 to her opinion. I would be glad to explain the situation. I know that 

 you and Congressman Herger have a strong interest in this. I made 

 a decision in light of a number of issues and questions that were 

 raised about not just the Cal-Owl draft EIS, reviewed draft EIS, as 

 well as the SNEP report that the best course of action ironically 

 I think is consistent with what the five or six scientists from the 

 SNEP team, who Mr. Herger referenced earlier, want to see hap- 

 pen. 



There, as you know, was recently completed the Sierra Nevada 

 Ecosystem Project report representing significant new information 

 which could have a bearing on the management direction in the Si- 

 erra Nevadas, particularly as it relates to the California spotted 

 owl. There has been wide and varied opinion about the adequacy 

 of the time permitted to review SNEP, as it's known, in the context 

 of this whole Cal-Owl decision. 



Apparently, and I have not had the opportunity to talk to any 

 of the scientists that you reference, nor with Dr. Millar, though I 

 certainly look forward to it, they have not had the opportunity to 

 discuss their concerns. Primarily though I think they are under the 

 impression that for some reason the information contained in the 

 RDEIS would not be made public and furthermore, at least in a 

 draft press release I obtained from them, they indicated that the 

 best process, scientific process is best fostered by releasing the in- 

 formation and allowing an independent science panel to help incor- 

 porate public comments into the final EIS after a sufficient public 

 review period. 



In fact, that's essentially what we have asked be done. I asked 

 Jack to set up an independent scientific panel which would involve 

 representatives of SNEP, others involved in preparing the scientific 

 foundation for the EIS as well as perhaps members of the original 

 CASPO team which developed the guidelines that are serving as 

 the interim basis for management of the Sierra Nevadas, that that 

 scientific team should conduct an evaluation of the information 

 contained in the RDEIS as well as the information in the SNEP re- 

 port, and as a part of their review, and I quote from the memoran- 

 dum that I sent Jack. "The team should conduct public workshops 

 to review the findings of SNEP and the DEIS and to encourage dis- 

 cussion of how they may be applied to management plans in the 

 Sierra Nevada forests." 



Now that review is intended to basically look at all the informa- 

 tion that is available and then make a determination as to whether 

 or not the alternatives identified in the draft EIS should be modi- 

 fied if a new alterative is necessary and basically to affirm the sci- 



