QLG - Environmental Meeting
Sacramento, CA
April 8, 1997
Notes Transcribed from Flipcharts

Expectations of today's meeting

Key issues facing us today.

What are areas of agreement? 1st & 2nd set of responses.

What are areas of non-agreement?

Alternative approaches (Administrative/Legislative Proposal)

Next Steps.

EXPECTATIONS

What expectations do you have for today's meeting? What would you like to leave with at the end of the day?

Mike Jackson, (QLG)- Leave friends.

George Terhune, (QLG)- Clear idea how to handle this.

Felice Pace, -Clear understanding of where everyone's coming from.

Bill Coates, (QLG)- Improve communication on all sides -- get something done -- do with respect.

Kathleen -Consensus on next steps.

Rose Comstock, (QLG)- Common agreements re QLG legislation - avoid stalement.

Frank Stewart, (QLG)- Leave early.

John M. Listen - convey information to Congressman Doolittle.

Tom ? -Identify areas of consensus and the mechanism to implement it.

Ed Murphy, (QLG) Portray differences to improve decision making.

Mike Yost, (QLG) -Clearer understanding of QLG's goals.

Andrea Lawrence (Sierra Nevada Alliance)-Clear understanding of what the bill is / isn't.

Tom Nelson, (QLG) Leave early.

Steve Evans, (Friends of the River)- Preserve ancient forests, roadless areas, riparian reserves.

Rick G. -How to move forward.

Kent Connaughton, (Lassen National Forest) - An optimistic sense of the possibilities - grounded in what the forest's capable of doing.

Jim ? Share information, perspectives - idea of where to go next.

Mark Madrid, (Plumas National Forest) - Agreement we can put together on the ground.

Ryan Henson, (California Wilderness Coalition)- Do justice to QLG vision and address ecological concerns.

Mike P. Capitalize on the possibilities.

Laurel Ames (Sierra Nevada Alliance) - Hear our frustrations and deal with those.

Bill Ritter (Congressman Herger Staff) - Observe for Congressman Fazio.

Dave Tenney, (Congressman Herger Staff) - Bring good news back to Congressman Herger.

John Sheehan, (QLG) - Pay due deference to the natural and human environment.

Louis Blumberg, (The Wilderness Society) - Administrative solution.

John Preschutti, (Plumas Forest Project) - Open to outcome.

John Buckley, (Central California Environmental Resource Center) - Reasons why legislation may not work and the QLG process may not be the best.

David Edleson, (Natural Resources Defense Council) - Clarify what we agree on and don't - build from there.

Craig Thomas, (Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs) - Concerned re scope of bill and outcomes.

ISSUES

• The opportunity for full, broad public input may be compromised by the QLG legislation and maybe even by the QLG process itself.
• Unclear dirction from the top of USDA and/or inability to implement that direction with a clear focus at the local level to meet the QLG vision.
• Legislative solutions set a bad precedent - a free for all might ensue. (Response: This is a reasonable, appropriate scale experiment)

  - Legislative threatens existing plans and processes.
  - Legislative process is very uncertain.
  - If there is to be legislation, protect the land base explicitly (this is true of any solution, which also needs to include SNEP protections)
  - CASPO size limits may not be honored by legislation - these protections need to be included explicitly in any solution.

• (Meta-issue) Are solutions to be based on input from a local coalition or broader national input.
• Discussion of scale - how long / how big does the project need to be?
• There's no top limit on the level of logging when the focus is on acreage (40,000 - 60,000 acres proposed)
• No independent scientific evaluation of the project proposed or provided for currently (NOTE: Independent scientific evaluator was later described as a qualified reviewer from an organization such as a university.)

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

First Set of responses

Second Set of responses

** These were universally agreed to by those present - at least in concept. For some issues, additional clarification/negotiation may be needed.

• SAT Guidelines
• Joint, collaborative work to increase funding for prescribed burning (continuing)
• Current laws, including CASPO, will be followed.
• California Spotted Owl EIS not constrained
• Support for strategic thinning (but need toclarify further the scope/ constraints.
• Support for landbase (allocations)
• Monitoring of effectiveness (including independent scientific evaluations)
• Logging should not occur in SAT riparian zones, off-base areas and deferred areas (PACs and SOHAS)
• Any additional moneys appropriated should not come out of Region 5

AREAS OF NON-AGREEMENT

• • SNEP areas not in the land base.
  • Watershed element
  • Catastrophic exemptions
  • Land/ Resource Management Plan revision (role/impact of legislation)
  • Scope, areas treated, volumes (board feet or acreage)
  • Group selection

ALTERNATIVES

Administrative/Legislative Proposal

Get Congress Involved

Get more money

Provide clear direction to the USFS

Use agreed-upon principles to secure language in the instructions contained in the Interior Appropriations Report.

NEXT STEPS

• QLG will work to incorporate today's agreements into the current language of the bill. (begin this process at the next QLG meeting, 4/10/97)
• A subgroup with representation from environmentals and QLG to work out details on appropriations support (e.g., start on list of "non-agreements").

  Louis and Michael Jackson to lead: get 3 - 4 members from each group; meet next week in Sacramento - possibly as CSAC - 4/11/97 at 2:00 PM and next 4/17/97 at 11:00 AM - location TBA; finish by 5/1/97)

• Follow up QLG meeting (may need all day) dedicated to resolve key issues / reach consensus on action / support need ed for appropriations approach.

(No agreement on time frame or accountability - this appears to be a natural follow-on to above item - facilitator's comment)