Klamath Forest Alliance
P. O. Box 820 Etna, CA 96027
Ph: 916-467-5405 Fax: 916-467-3130 E-mail: Klamath@snowcrest.org

September 21, 1996

Linda Blum
Quincy Library Group
P. O. Box 1749
Quincy, CA 95971

SUBJECT: HERGER LEGISLATION RELATED TO QLG PROPOSAL

Dear Linda:

Thank you for providing a copy of the proposed legislation which we received on or about September 12th. I have reviewed it and also discussed it at length with Michael Jackson and with KFA staff and activists.

The Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA) would very much like to be able to support a demonstration of the management scheme developed by the Quincy Library Group (QLG). For many years we have believed that a new consensus on management of public forests is needed and that such a consensus can only come about as a result of on-the-ground efforts involving local, regional and national interests. We also believe that among so-called "partnership efforts" the QLG is the only one that has demonstrated real potential.

Unfortunately, the bill you sent can not be accepted. From our perspective, it has at least two key defects which make it unacceptable to KFA and which we predict will prevent the bill from gaining support among the vast majority of grassroots forest activists. These defects are:

• The findings attribute the altered state of the "forest stands in the Sierra Nevada" to "fire suppression and an over accumulation of natural fuels" (page 2, 5 &6). As you well know, this is not the whole stories. The best scientific information and experience on the ground have concluded that logging practices - many of which are still in common use today in the Sierra Nevada - are the #1 cause of "altered structure and function" and of "unacceptable risk of . . . high intensity fire." In addition, it is also clear that past and current livestock grazing practices have been a very important factor in theses "changes" and "risks". In this regard the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Study (SNEP) is but the latest in a long list of relevant research. I believe you are aware of this literature. In my opinion, it would be a grave mistake to allow a "forest health demonstration project" proceed under this premise. A national precedent which enshrines bad science must be not oly rejected but actively opposed by those who wish to support good science and honest practice in our public forests. As I told Michael, KFA does not believe it is acceptable to create problems for other forest activists in other areas in order to achieve local objectives, no matter how promising those objectives might be.
• The bill as written is ambiguous about management of areas identified as "off-base" in the QLG proposal. While we understand that the "map" referred to will be the QLG Proposal Map, the language concerning which areas are available for logging and other activities is not clear. In fact, because it identifies only "spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers" as deferred from timber harvesting (sic) (page 5, 1-6), the bill could be construed to imply that all other areas are available. Even, if one construed the language to cover QLG off-base areas, the language can be read to indicate that these (off-base) areas could be logged if an EIS is prepared. That is exactly the situation today. Thus the legislation does not appear to offer any increased protection or a true deferral for roadless areas.

If the QLG as a whole, a subgroup or caucus, or any individual member had wished the support of KFA or the environmental community as a whole for legislation mandating a demonstration of the QLG approach, I would have though that entity or individual would have circulated a draft for comment prior to agreeing to final language. The QLG apparently decided not to seek this path to support but rather to present the bill to the environmental, local and regional communities and the world as a "fait accomplis". I consider this very especially unfortunate because I believe, with a limited amount of effort, bill language could have been achieve which a broad array of loca, regional and national interests could have supported.

In spite of these disappointements, I told Michal and I repeat to you that I would be willing to facilitate a process involving key local, regional and national enviromental groups, aimed as achieving bill language which allows a reasonable demonstration of the QLG approach and which the vst majority of those with interests in public forests of the Northern Sierra could support. I envision a time bounded process, involving circulation of paper and a final meeting. Of course, I would expect a commitment from the QLG not to seek to advance the Bill until the time allocated for negotiations is up. Please take this offer to the QLG.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

Felice Pace
Executive Direcor

cc: Senator Barbara Boxer (attention Jordan Royer/Rose Kapelczyn, Linda Delgado).
Senator Diane Feinstein (attention Kathy Lacy and Stacy Crum),
California Ancient Forest Alliance Executive Committee.

03/09/97 09:54:19 PM