36 



entific foundation for that EIS so we can move forward expedi- 

 tiously. That's what we seek to achieve. 



Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Lyons, let me say that I didn't hear what 

 Mr. Herger cited, and it may be what I'm about to cite. But let me 

 just say that these scientists really strongly take issue with the 

 representation that either more time is needed or that a second 

 panel should be charged with getting into this process. I mean Dr. 

 Jonathan Kusel[sic], Forest Community Research and Visiting 

 Scholar, Environmental Science, Policy and Management, Univer- 

 sity of California at Berkeley sent Chief Thomas a letter, which I 

 think is dated September 9th where he says the following. "Two 

 things are absolutely clear. One, no more study is needed, at least 

 in the short term and for immediate decisionmaking purposes and, 

 two, a panel, the length that is being suggested, whether it in- 

 volves additional study or not, is absurd." 



He goes on to say. "To call for more study is foolish. It is an obvi- 

 ous way of avoiding tough decisions that will not be popular with 

 everyone, and it serious cheapens the scientific work to date. The 

 irony of the call for additional study is that it undermines itself. 

 How with all the time and resources spent to date can an addi- 

 tional extremely short-term study or expert panel be justified. An 

 additional panel will not produce better science, and in the eyes of 

 the taxpaying public and numerous elected officials why should 

 more money be devoted to yet another study. Worse, the call for ad- 

 ditional study will lead to a public less inclined to support studies 

 in the future regardless of merit. As these studies become more po- 

 liticized the work of scientists becomes irrelevant." 



I guess I just would share my concern that your delay of this now 

 is going to send us into I guess next February, and I don't know 

 when you would actually be able to reflect the changes on the for- 

 est, but, we've got people dying on the vine. The mills are closing, 

 they're losing their jobs, they're moving out of the area, and it just 

 seems to me in the light of what these very respected scientists, 

 many of them professors who've been involved in this for months, 

 or several years I guess actually in the case of SNEP, and I've 

 never seen statements like this from members of the scientific com- 

 munity who are specifically attacking the Administration's decision 

 and characterizing it as politically motivated and not in the inter- 

 ests of good science. 



Under Secretary Lyons. Well if I could respond, Congressman 

 Doolittle, I would suggest in part that those scientists don't under- 

 stand the process that has been put in place to review the findings 

 of SNEP and the DEIS. We're not talking about a new scientific 

 study. We're talking about analysis of the information that exists. 



Mr. Doolittle. You're talking about a new panel, and that's 

 what Kusel is directly addressing himself to. 



Under Secretary LYONS. That's correct, but for what it's worth 

 and I think for the record we've heard from other scientists in- 

 volved in SNEP who have a slightly different perspective from the 

 SNEP scientists that you quoted, and I don't think anyone should 

 be surprised that scientists like politicians can disagree. 



I would suggest you consider some of the comments that were 

 made by other members of the panel. Kay Norman Johnson from 

 Oregon State University who was involved in the SNEP effort and 



