Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
June 29, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1581 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY E. POWELL REGIONAL FORESTER PACIFIC SOUTHWEST
REGION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT - THE
SIERRA NEVADA FRAMEWORK
BODY:
Mr. Chairman
And Members Of The Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the Administration on the Sierra Nevada Framework for
Conservation and Collaboration (Framework), and report on the progress of the
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement that is
currently out for public comment. I am Bradley E. Powell, Regional Forester for
the Pacific Southwest Region. Accompanying me today is Kent Connaughton,
Framework Project Manager.
The Framework is an effort to integrate the
best available science on wildlife and sensitive species needs into forest plans
covering the Sierra Nevada to help prevent future Federal listings of California
spotted owls and other old-growth dependent species as either threatened or
endangered. The Framework is also an aggressive effort to deal with the serious
hazardous fuels and invasive species issues in the Sierra Nevada. The effort
will help the Forest Service be sound resource stewards, and will help ensure
that there is a more predictable supply of goods and services from national
forests in the Sierra Nevada. Creating the Framework has also helped the Forest
Service develop closer collaborative relationships with the public. The public
helped the Forest Service identify the five problem areas that needed to be
addressed for the Sierra Nevada national forests. The five problem areas
outlined in the Notice of Intent (NOI) are: old forest ecosystems; aquatic,
riparian and meadow ecosystems; fire and fuels management; noxious weeds; and,
lower westside hardwood ecosystems. The alternatives in the NOI addressing these
problem areas were deliberately broad, to represent the wide range of public
opinion that exists regarding these issues.
The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) was released on May 5, 2000. The DEIS examines the
environmental effects of possible future management scenarios for the Modoc,
Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia National
Forests, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and the portion of the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in the Sierra Nevada. The 90 day public comment
period closes August 11, 2000. Public meetings are being held on each of these
national forests, as well as in other major cities in the States of California
and Nevada, to provide information to the public and solicit comments on the
DEIS. Briefings for Congressional staff, State and local elected officials,
tribal representatives, and other groups and organizations are also being held.
We will review the public comment and expect to issue the final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) and record of decision (ROD) by late 2000.
From
the eight alternatives analyzed in the DEIS, the Forest Service has identified
two preferred alternatives, which are designated as Alternatives Six and Eight.
In the DEIS, all alternatives have an aquatic strategy, an old growth strategy,
and a fire strategy. The preferred alternatives balance fire and fuels
management with the need to protect and restore the ecosystem in terms of old
forests and aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems. The interrelationship of
these issues and the degree to which they provide for a long-term management
strategy for the Sierra Nevada will be a key focus in this EIS process.
Social and economic effects for each alternative are also issues of
concern to the public, especially those who live in or near the Sierra Nevada.
The EIS process is looking at the effects of each alternative on indicators such
as number of jobs and wages related to national forest timber, estimated County
receipts, and potential impacts on minority and low-income populations. The
analysis considers various scales, from local communities to Counties and larger
geographic regions.
Timeline and Costs
The EIS project has taken
longer than expected. The original timeline was for a final EIS by July 1999.
One of the lessons learned from this project is that the public involvement and
collaboration process, when done as extensively as has been done for this
effort, takes time. On the plus side, the last year-and-a-half has given us a
tremendous opportunity to engage people with a variety of interests, which is
reflected in the DEIS alternatives. Additionally, there have been efficiencies
gained by taking a regional approach, as opposed to having 11 separate planning
processes-to amend each Forest Plan for each national forest in the Sierra
Nevada.
In the last two years, the Forest Service has expended
approximately $6 million on the Framework project. Our estimate
is that it will take about $2 million more to complete the
final EIS this year. We think this investment is warranted given the vast number
of benefits that this management effort will bring to the region.
Public
Involvement and Collaboration
We have held nearly 70 public meetings and
workshops in California and Nevada. We have received and considered the ideas
offered in some 8,000 pieces of correspondence from approximately 6,000 people
and organizations. We have participated in meetings with tribes, and have met
with County Boards of Supervisors throughout the Sierra Nevada. Groups as
diverse as the California Forestry Association, California Cattlemen's
Association, the Sierra Forest Protection Campaign, the Quincy Library Group and
the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics have provided input.
Collaboration with the science community is a key, ongoing process. Scientists
and managers from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of
Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the
Environmental Protection Agency, universities and research stations continue to
work closely with us.
Relation to the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library
Group Forest Recovery Act The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery Act (QLG) was enacted into law on October 21, 1998, as Title IV of the
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999 as
contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999. A final EIS was completed,
and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on August 20, 1999, to implement the
Act. One of the decisions within the ROD required that all treatment of suitable
owl habitat within the area covered by the Act be deferred until such time as
new direction was issued as part of the Sierra Nevada framework EIS project. The
Framework DEIS, in turn, has included the QLG project into the analysis for all
of the alternatives being considered.
Relation to the Rulemaking Process
Proposing the Protection of the Remaining Roadless Areas within
the National Forest System There are approximately 2.4 million acres of
inventoried roadless area within the 11 national forests in the
Sierra Nevada. Information gathered from the Framework process is being utilized
in the roadless rulemaking. Also, the QLG Act contains specific provisions
(Section 401 (c)(4)) regarding roadless area entries during the
five year pilot project timeframe.
Relation to the Giant Sequoia
National Monument
On April 15, 2000 the President exercised his
authority under the Antiquities Act to extend permanent protection to objects of
historic or scientific interest on federal lands through the creation of the
approximately 328,000 acre Giant Sequoia National Monument. When the President
had asked the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a review of the status of
giant sequoias on the Sequoia National Forest on February 14, 2000, and to make
a recommendation within 60 days, the Framework DEIS was in the final stages of
being reviewed and printed. Establishment of the new National Monument is not
reflected in the DEIS. Given the timing of this recent development, the Forest
Service will incorporate this new information into the ongoing analysis, and
will ensure that this designation, and any Changes in effects that may result
from it, are reflected in the Final EIS.
Relation to the Draft Report "A
Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems"
The draft report, A Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People
and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems (Cohesive Strategy), is a
framework for setting overall priorities and programmatic emphasis. It is based
on risk mapping that provides a broad scale estimate of acres by fire regime and
condition class. That data will continue to be refined as it is stepped down to
the forest and district scale. One critical source in the step down process will
be regional assessments, forest and watershed level analysis, as well as project
level planning. The Sierra Nevada Framework is a key element of this process.
While the actual number of acres requiring treatment may change over time with
refinements in analysis, the draft Cohesive Strategy is clearly in step with the
needs and purposes in this ongoing assessment.
Summary
The
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment EIS is an important effort, as it is
addressing significant issues in the Sierra Nevada. We will continue to
integrate the best science into natural resource management and work
collaboratively with others, to ensure sustainable environmental, economic and
social conditions in the Sierra Nevada to meet the needs of people both now and
in the future.
This concludes my written statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or members of your subcommittee may have at this time.
END
LOAD-DATE: June 30, 2000
