19 



Two things are absolutely clear: ( 1) No more study is needed — at least in the short 

 term and for immediate decision-making purposes; and (2) panel the length that is 

 being suggested whether it involves additional study or not is absurd. 



To call for more study is foolish. It is an obvious way of avoiding tough decisions 

 that will not be popular with everyone (as if that is possible), and it seriously cheap- 

 ens 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 numer- 

 ous elected officials, why should more money be devoted to yet another study? 

 Worse, the call for additional study will lead to a public less inclined to support 

 studies in the future, regardless of merit. As these studies become more politicized 

 the work of scientists becomes irrelevant. 



Perhaps most serious, the recent delay will re-polarize groups instead of building 

 on the collaborative processes and good will that has been developed through SNEP. 

 That would be a great loss. The decision to convene a new panel charts a course 

 to re-polarize groups in a dramatically de-polarized environment, one which the 

 SNEP public participation team and all the SNEP team scientists worked so hard 

 to establish. The government but mostly the Forest Service will be blamed and 

 claims like those of the Quincy Library Group — that it is the Forest Service that 

 is at fault — will ring true to many. 



What is clear is that scientists have done their jobs. There is more to do as we 

 have raised as least as many questions in our studies as we have answered. We can 

 quibble about how well the SNEP scientists or the Cal Owl Team carried out their 

 respective charges, but that is not the issue at hand now. Nor will those issues be 

 resolved with a panel with the likes and the duration of the one proposed. If there 

 are contradictions between the SNEP and California Spotted Owl RDEIS, and we 

 know there are some, the alternative to convene a very short-lived panel to review 

 the discrepancies might be appropriate, though this panel is unlikely to resolve the 

 discrepancies. Such a panel will have to be open and the California Spotted Owl 

 RDEIS will have to be released before or by the start of the panel's work To repeat, 

 it cannot be a closed process, which means the public must have access to informa- 

 tion, including the California Spotted Owl RDEIS, to ensure a legitimate review 

 process. Since bringing in more or different scientists will not resolve the discrep- 

 ancies, another logical outcome will be to embark on multi-course action that is in- 

 tensively monitored to ensure learning from the results. This is similar to open- 

 adaptive management suggested in SNEP. 



Decisions still must be made based on the information at hand, now. The public, 

 politicians of all stripes, and resource managers have patiently waited and have 

 even supported the studies acknowledging their need and importance. It is ex- 

 tremely unfortunate the administration appears reluctant to move forward in the 

 Sierra because these processes and goodwill in the region represent real opportuni- 

 ties for successes and are consistent with what the administration called for at the 

 Portland Summit several years ago. Public patience and support will not extend to 

 yet another study. The delay of the California Spotted Owl RDEIS and the call for 

 additional study will make it far more difficult to maintain the dialogues and col- 

 laborative processes, and ensure the goodwill necessary for building new relation- 

 ships. Delaying decision-making now will re-polarize and make for much more con- 

 tentious decision-making in the future. 



Jonathan Kusel 

 Forest Community Research and Visiting Scholar 



U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 Pacific Southwest Research Station 



Berkeley, CA, August 27, 1996. 

 Dr. James Space, Station Director 

 USDA Forest Service 

 PSW Research Station 

 Albany, CA 94701 

 Dear Jim: 



Recent actions by the Administration to postpone the release of the REVISED 

 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) for Managing the Cali- 



