18 



Sept. 6, 1996. 

 Press Release: Scientists Criticize Suppression of Calowl Report 



Recent efforts by the Administration to postpone the release of the Forest Serv- 

 ice's REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MANAG- 

 ING THE CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL (DRAFT EIS) are drawing criticism from 

 former science team members of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). The 

 moves are criticized by key scientists within SNEP as an attempt to suppress the 

 documents from open public and scientific review. 



While emphasizing that they do not speak collectively for the SNEP effort, former 

 SNEP science team members Richard Kattelmann, Jonathan Kusel, David Graber, 

 Douglas Leisz, Constance Millar, and William Stewart condemned the move as a 

 step away from open, scientific inquiry where the widest array of information is 

 available to all. The release of the DRAFT EIS, scheduled for August 20, and in- 

 tended for a 90-day public review period, has been blocked by the Administration 

 on grounds that the report did not take into account new scientific studies produced 

 by SNEP. 



The release of the CalOwl draft had already been postponed for two years, with 

 the latest postponement expressly for the purpose of reviewing the SNEP docu- 

 ments, which became available in early June this year. Immediately after the SNEP 

 release, CalOwl team members formally met with the SNEP science team. As a re- 

 sult of three months review and consultation with SNEP team members, the CalOwl 

 team developed the DRAFT EIS including Appendix Q, "Consideration of New Infor- 

 mation, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project", which explicitly and in detail com- 

 pares the science bases and management interpretations of the two projects. 



The former members of the SNEP science team, who have been informed about 

 the CalOwl process through the 1994 draft EIS, from interactions during SNEP 

 analyses, and from preprints of various parts of the DRAFT EIS which were avail- 

 able to some of the scientists, believe it is in the public interest to release the 

 DRAFT EIS immediately. Withholding a draft report that has already been through 

 major revisions after the initial draft of 1994 and through review of the SNEP re- 

 port will not promote the open, scientific inquiry that is clearly necessary for the 

 Sierra Nevada. Both teams worked with many of the same databases and science 

 base. Different interpretations of the scientific information and management impli- 

 cations exist within the different chapters of the SNEP report, and will undoubtedly 

 come out during review of the DRAFT EIS. But only after open public review of the 

 full DRAFT EIS can the management conclusions and scientific interpretations be 

 adequately evaluated. 



The latest move (Sept 6) by the Administration to maintain the embargo on the 

 DRAFT EIS and convene a new scientific panel is criticized by the former SNEP 

 scientists as a further move to suppress information in the report from public scru- 

 tiny with a process that has dubious economic feasibility. Rather than convene a 

 new panel, with the team members selected by political appointees in Washington, 

 and delaying the process even more, the scientists believe the scientific process is 

 best fostered by releasing the DRAFT EIS immediately, and allowing an independ- 

 ent science panel to help incorporate public comments into the final EIS after a suf- 

 ficient public review period. 



For further information, contact: 



Dr. Richard Kattelmann, Hydrologist, Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Labora- 

 tory, Mammoth Lakes, CA, (619) 935-4903 



Dr. David Graber, Wildlife Biologist, National Biological Service, Three Rivers, 

 CA, (209) 565-3173 



Dr. Jonathan Kusel, Forest Community Research, Greeneville, CA (916) 284-1022 



Dr. Douglas Leisz, Consulting Forester, Placerville, CA, (916) 626-3377 



Dr. Constance Millar, Geneticist, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, Al- 

 bany, CA (510) 559-6435 



Dr. William Stewart, Economist, Pacific Institute, Berkeley, CA (510) 251-1600 



Sept, 9, 1996 



Dear Chief Thomas: I worked with you on FEMAT (with the community assess- 

 ment group) and coordinated the SNEP social assessment and all SNEP public par- 

 ticipation activities. I would like to share a few observations about the recent deci- 

 sion to further delay the release of California Spotted Owl Revised Draft Environ- 

 mental Impact Statement (RDEIS). 



