37 



was a member of the team wrote to Secretary Glickman and stated 

 the following. "The SNEP work makes original contributions in a 

 variety of ways, including an inventory and analysis of the late suc- 

 cessional old-growth forests, strategies for conservation of old 

 growth and the modeling of fire effects. This work should also be 

 an integral part of any future analysis. By combining the products 

 of these two efforts and the expertise of the people that constructed 

 them you will be able to develop the strongest possible conservation 

 strategy for national forests of the Sierra Nevadas." 



Also writing to Secretary Glickman was Dr. Jerry Franklin, also 

 a member of the SNEP team. Dr. Franklin wrote and said. "I hope 

 that this letter will be of value to you in considering whether or 

 not to issue the modified draft EIS for public comment. It would 

 appear to be that to do so will ensure that yet a third draft, which 

 fully incorporates existing scientific and technical information, will 

 have to be developed and run through a public review process." 



In addition, we heard from Dr. Susan Harrison, who had some 

 association with the effort and is at the University of California at 

 Davis where the chairperson of SNEP is a professor. Dr. Harrison 

 indicated. "As a scientist I would strongly urge that you ask the 

 Forest Service to maintain the cautious, conservative CASPO-based 

 management plan that is presently being used in the California Si- 

 erra Nevada until there has been time to assimilate the SNEP 

 findings into a proposed management alternative." 



And, in addition, an internal memorandum drafted by Dr. Jerry 

 Vernon[sic] and Barry Noon[sic] and also signed by other members 

 of the team involved in developing the CASPO guidelines raised 

 concerns about the Cal-Owl DEIS and urged that these issues be 

 addressed. 



My point is simply this. The reason that we elected to step back 

 and take another look at the scientific underpinnings of this report 

 is precisely for this reason. There is strong difference of opinion 

 within the scientific community, and I can assure you from many 

 experiences with situations like this all that is going to assure is 

 controversy and eventually litigation that will not get this issue re- 

 solved any sooner, but in fact will drag it out possibly for years. 

 That's not good for the resource, it's not good for the communities 

 that depend on the resource, and it certainly is not consistent with 

 our goal in trying to get clear defensible scientifically sound re- 

 source management guidelines on the ground as quickly as pos- 

 sible. 



This is the way to do it, and not to allow the controversy to con- 

 tinue to spin to the advantage of one side or the other. It makes 

 no sense and it has no merit. 



Chairman HANSEN. Do my two colleagues want an additional 

 round? 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. No. 



Chairman Hansen. Mr. Herger, did you want an additional 

 round? 



Mr. Herger. Yes, briefly, Mr. Chairman. 



Chairman Hansen. In that case would Mr. Doolittle like to take 

 the gavel because I've got an appointment and I don't want to keep 

 these folks waiting. 



Would that be all right with you, Mr. Doolittle? 



