'7 GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1993 Y 4. AG 8/1:103-58 Cimt Sequoia Preservation Act of 1... HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OX SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2153 MARCH 9, 1994 Serial No. 103-58 SEP I h 1934 Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80-635 WASHINGTON : 1994 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044742-9 ,*/ ^^ GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1993 Y 4. AG 8/ 1 : 103-58 Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1... HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCO:\IMITTEE OX SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2153 MARCH 9, 1994 Serial No. 103-58 ••^"Oir>y SEP 1 4 1934 Printed for the vise of the Committee on Agricult\ire U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80-635 WASHINGTON : 1994 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044742-9 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE E (KIKA) DE GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California, Vice Chairman CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minnesota TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BILL SARPALIUS, Texas JILL L. LONG, Indiana GARY A. CONDIT, CaUfomia COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CaUfomia EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina DAVID MINGE, Minnesota EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama JAY INSLEE, Washington THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky EARL POMEROY, North Dakota TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi SAM FARR, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas LA GARZA, Texas, Chairman PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Ranking Minority Member BILL EMERSON, Missouri STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin TOM LEWIS, Florida ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon LARRY COMBEST, Texas WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado BILL BARRETT, Nebraska JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio THOMAS W. EWING, IlUnois JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Cahfomia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia JAY DICKEY, Arkansas RICHARD W. POMBO, Cahfomia CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida NICK SMITH, Michigan TERRY EVERETT, Alabama Professional Staff DiANNE Powell, Staff Director Vernie Hubert, Chief Counsel and Legislative Director Gary R. Mitchell, Minority Staff Director James A. Davis, Press Secretary Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources CHARLIE ROSE, SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky, Vice Chairman SANFORD D. bishop, Jr., Georgia GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., Cahfomia GARY A. CONDIT, Cahfomia EVA M. CLAYTON, North CaroUna KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida DAVID MINGE, Minnesota JAY ESfSLEE, Washington EARL POMEROY, North Dakota CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota SAM FARR, Cahfomia HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri North Carolina, Chairman TOM LEWIS, Florida BILL EMERSON, Missouri JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Cahfomia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia bob GOODLATTE, Virginia JAY DICKEY, Arkansas RICHARD W. POMBO, Cahfomia TERRY EVERETT, Alabama (H) CONTENTS Page H.R. 2153, a bill to designate the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve in the State of California, and for other purposes 287 Rose, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, opening statement 1 Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement 19 Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Califomia, prepared statement 16 Witnesses Boyd, Kirk, attorney, Boyd, Huffman & Williams 51 Prepared statement 137 Brown, Hon. George E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Csilifomia 2 Prepared statement 93 Cloer, Carla, resident, Porterville, CA 39 Prepared statement 116 Duysen, Larry, logging superintendent, Sierra Forest Products 84 I*repared statement 200 Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Califor- nia 10 PrepEired statement 105 Gasser, Donald P., lecturer and specialist, University of California-Berkeley ... 69 Prepared statement 172 Kondolf, G. Mathias, assistant professor, environmental planning. University of Cahfomia-Berkeley 67 Prepared statement 166 Lehman, Hon. Richard H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Califomia 7 Prepared statement 102 Lilley, Jeff, on behalf of Hiune Lake Christian Camps 79 Prepared statement 176 McCloskey, Michael, chairman, Sierra Club, also on behalf of the National Audubon Society 49 Prepared statement 129 Ravenel, Hon. Arthur, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of South CaroUna 11 Rundel, Philip W., department of biology and laboratory of biomedical and environmental sciences. University of California-Los Angeles 64 Prepared statement 158 Schhtz, Frank J., contractor, Tulare County, CA 82 Prepared statement 193 Shannon, Jack, vice president, Califomia Cattlemen 86 Prepared statement 205 Thomas, Jack Ward, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agricxilture .... 26 Prepared statement 106 Thomas, Hon. William M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Cedifomia 4 Prepared statement 99 Wolf, Robert E., forester, St. Leonard, MD 54 Prepared statement 140 (III) IV Submitted Material Page Blvunberg, Louis, assistant regional director, California-Nevada office. Wilder- ness Society, statement 207 Brodersen, Thomas C, attorney, Crowe, WiUiams, Jordan, Richey & Brodersen, letter of March 11, 1994 210 Challacombe, J.R., Sequoia Watch, statement 211 Christenson, Daniel P., professional biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, statement 217 Croft, William, senior research fellow, department of linguistics. University of Manchester, statement 222 Fembaugh, J. Neil, resident, Visalia, CA, statement 226 Fontaine, Joe, Techachapi, CA, letter of March 13, 1994 230 Keene, Roy, executive director. Public Forestry Foundation, statement 237 Little, Charlene B., founder. Sequoia Forest Alliance, statement 241 Litton, Martin, resident, Portola Valley, CA, statement 242 Litton, R. Burton, Jr., landscape architect, F.A.S.L.A., letter of March 3, 1994 245 Luskin, Rick, executive director. Environment Now, statement 257 Maples, James E., chairman, district 5, Tulare County Board of Supervisors, CA, letter of March 1, 1994 262 Robinson, Grordon, forestry consultant, statement 263 Society of American Foresters, southern San Joaquin chapter, statement 269 Steeg, Gay Ver, resident, Porterville, CA, statement 277 Utt, Linda, president, Tule River Conservancy, statement 279 West, Ray, and Marilyn West, residents, SpringviUe, CA, letter of January 12, 1994 282 Willard, Dwight M., attorney, Berkeley, CA, statement 284 GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1993 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1994 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Specialty Crops AND Natural Resources, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charlie Rose (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Brown, Condit, Stenholm, Peterson, Farr, Volkmer, Lewis, Doolittle, Kingston, Groodlatte, and Pombo. Also present: Representative Dooley, member of the committee. Staff present: Dale Moore, minority legislative coordinator; Glen- da L. Temple, clerk; Keith Pitts, Alexandra Buell, and Stacy Carey. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE ROSE, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Rose. The subcommittee will please come to order. I want to thank our five panels for being here today and the members that are present. The purpose of this hearing is a review of H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act. H.R. 2153 would designate approximately 440,000 acres within the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests as the giant sequoia pre- serve. The purpose of this would be to protect the giant sequoia groves as well as all contiguous forests within the boundaries of the preserve. The preserve would be dedicated to scientific study, rec- reational activity and envionmental protection. Thank you. [H.R. 2153 appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. The first panel: the Honorable George Brown, Member of Congress; the Honorable Richard Lehman, Member of Congress, both from California; the Honorable Arthur Ravenel, Member of Congress from South Carolina; and the gentlelady. Honorable Anna Eshoo, Member of Congress from California. We may have Mr. Bill Thomas from California, who is in the Ways and Means Commit- tee. This is Mr. Brown's bill. Mr. Brown, we are happy to have you here today and look forward to whatever statement you have. The floor is yours, sir. (1) STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me express my gratitude to the subcommittee for being willing to schedule a hearing on this legislation and for making the arrange- ments necessary to bring together so many of the involved parties as witnesses this morning. I think it is clear that we will have a full and extensive presen- tation of both the pro and the con aspects of this particular pro- posal, and I think that this is, of course, the highest function that the Congress can perform to allow the opportunity for a full explo- ration of the pros and cons on important issues such £is this. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement, and I ask your per- mission to insert it in the record, and I will try to cover the mate- rial informally as best I can. Mr. Rose. All right. Without objection, both your full statement and your comments will be part of the record, as for all our wit- nesses. Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, seeks to set aside within two of our national forests in California in the Sierras that area which is the prime and only site in the world for the giant sequoia, one of the great attractions, one of the great ecological assets of the en- tire world. It is a tree which is both the largest and the oldest, according to many, of any tree in the world. It is, of course, related to the coast redwood, the Chinese redwood and to one or two other spe- cies, but it is distinct and separate and unique. My reasons for introducing this legislation, which sets aside the area of its habitat within the two national forests where it cur- rently exists, are to some degree emotional and sentimental. From another standpoint, they are highly realistic and practical because there is the possibility that this unique treasure will come under increasing pressure, as it has over the last century, and may end up actually being destroyed in the long run. The problem with the sequoias, of course, is a subset of the prob- lems of the entire Sierra ecosystem. In focusing on the sequoias, I am not trying to diminish the need for an ecosystem management approach to this entire region of California. I know that the Forest Service is concerned about this and will be seeking to improve the management of that system. I should say that as a native Califomian, I have always regarded with awe and admiration our great natural resources such as rep- resented by the sequoias. I spent about 2 weeks of my August re- cess last year visiting this area and other related areas, including the coast redwoods and other areas of California. I have hiked over, flown over, traversed by automobile and jeep many of these areas of California, and I have done so for the last 50 or 60 years. It would be safe to say that I have a tremendous personal attachment to this area and a desire to protect it in per- petuity for the benefit of my children, my grandchildren, and I even have a few great-grandchildren. I would like them to have the opportunity to enjoy this great global resource that we have in the sequoias. I am also very much interested in the proper scientific manage- ment of this region. As you know, because you also participated in it, we drafted a Forest Management Act nearly 20 years ago which was intended to provide for the scientific management of resources such as this. I will Eiffirm, and I sincerely believe it, that this bill would not have been necessary if the mandate of the National Forest Manage- ment Act, which we worked so painstakingly on a generation ago, had been faithfully carried out. That mandate was not carried out. The forests, not only these but others, were systematically over- cut, frequently under below-cost timber sale contracts. As a result, we now have a situation in which various sections of our forests in the West as well as in other areas of the country are threatened, and other endangered species and precious ecological treasures are likewise threatened by a failure to properly carry out the mandate of the National Forest Management Act. This bill seeks to reverse that situation by establishing a pro- tected preserve for this particularly valuable and threatened eco- system. The main purpose of it is to foster the scientific manage- ment of that treasure, and at the same time to emphasize and to enhance the multipurpose resources of that area, with a particular focus not only on the scientific use of the area but the recreational use and other uses. It will not be completely closed to other uses of this resource, although they will be managed much more care- fully under this legislation than they are at the present time. So what I am asking the subcommittee to do is to help us to per- fect this bill. I do not contend that this legislation, any more than any other legislation, was bom perfect from my mind or from the mind of any Congressman. It is, however, I think, a valuable start- ing point to consider how we can best secure the aims of this bill. I think my primary purpose here this morning is not to elaborate on the details, because there are others here far more qualified than I am to do that, but to emphasize repeatedly the importance and the priority of doing this. We have here one of the world's most unique ecosystems. It is part of a fragile environment which is under continued threat. Steps need to be taken to protect not only the entire Sierra eco- system but this particular part of it in order that it can remain and become even more a focus for global attention and study and enjoy- ment by tourists and others from all over the world, as it is today but not nearly to the extent that it should be. We think that this can be accomplished with no economic harm to the region. There are a limited number of jobs based upon the exploitation of the timber resource, probably a few hundred. These jobs are maintained with a subsidy from below-cost sales of about $8 million a year. We believe that eliminating those below-cost timber sales and en- hancing the recreational and other legitimate uses of the region will tremendously add to the economic contribution that this land will make to the people of California and to the United States, and we urge that it be developed in that way. In addition to that, of course, we are providing in this legislation for certain economic steps which will protect the right of local gov- ernment agencies to continue to draw in-lieu resources, tax re- sources, from the region. There are provisions for payment to do that, and there are provisions to establish a fund which will pro- vide for job retraining and other economic measures to protect the economic base of the region. We want to do that. We do not want to see a single job lost in California. We think that the continued overuse and mismanage- ment of this resource, in the long run will destroy the value of this region as an economic base. We do not want to see that happen. You will hear other witnesses who will testify to the importance of the fisheries resources and other resources which will be en- hanced by what we propose to do with this legislation. With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude and, as I said before, allow others who aire technically more qualified than I am to comment on the details, but I wanted you to understand my own deep, passionate, emotional commitment to the aim of this legislation, and I urge on you, I beg of you, to assist us in perfect- ing this bill so that it can achieve that purpose. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Thank you. Chairman Brown. Our next panelist is the Honorable William Thomas, Member of Congress from the State of California. Mr. Thomas. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Thomas of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being here at the beginning. I am down at the Health Care Subcommittee several floors below, and we continue to meet on the question of health care. I would ask unanimous consent that my written testimony be made a part of the record. Mr. Rose. Without objection. Mr. Thomas of California. I cannot match my friend and col- league's 50 to 60 years of being familiar with the area. I can only establish a 20- to 30-year record and perhaps place in front of you some quality arguments, £ind that is, out of all of the areas that a person can live in California, I chose this to be my home, to raise my family, and in recent years, I have had the privilege of rep- resenting the people who live in that area, as well. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the bill. As you know, this would create a 400,000-plus acre giant se- quoia preserve, and much of that preserve would be in the congres- sional district that I represent. Let me state at the outset Mr. Rose. Let me interrupt you. What percent? Mr. Thomas of California. I cannot give you a percent off the top of my head. Mr. Rose. Do you have a rough idea of the acreage? Mr. Thomas of California. Between Mr. Dooley, Mr. Lehman, and myself, we represent 100 percent of it. Mr. Lehman. You and I, 100 percent of it. Mr. Dooley. Yes. I am in the valley. Mr. Thomas of California. You are in the valley. The two of us represent 100 percent, and we can argue over the percentage. I can give you that information, but it is going to be a significant minor- ity if it is not the majority. Mr. Rose. All right, so it will be in whose district? Mr. Thomas of California. The two of ours, right here. Mr. Rose. Lehman and Thomas? Mr. Thomas of California. Yes. Mr. Rose. All right, thank you. Ck) ahead. Mr. Thomas of California. And if you will take the two testi- monies delivered by both of us and combine them, you will have 100 percent of the forest. Mr. Rose. Thank you. Mr. Thomas of California. I am opposed to the legislation, and I am opposed to it because it is unnecessary. Right now, today, even without the so-called protections afforded by this bill, the only threats to the giant sequoia are entirely natural: Fire, wind, insect infestation, and old age. And we know, by the way, that as a spe- cies they have perhaps evolved into a magnificent device to protect against all of those, and that is one of the reasons they are able to achieve the old age that they do. The giant sequoia is currently protected by Forest Service regula- tions. Presidential proclamation, and the 1990 mediated settlement agreement of the Sequoia National Forest land management plan. In addition, although the jobs and job opportunities would not seem large by big-city standards, this bill would have a negative impact on jobs and opportunities in Tulare County, and in addition to that, it would impose a direct cost on all taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to any and all testimony in- dicating that existing protections are in any way inadequate or in- sufficient. The mediated settlement agreement prohibits not only the logging of giant sequoias themselves but also prohibits the cut- ting of any timber within 1,000 feet of a giant sequoia. This bill would take, as I said, over 442,000 acres of land in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and turn it into a preserve, where no timber cutting of any kind would be allowed. Grazing would be banned within 10 years, although there is no indication that livestock operations have had any impact on the giant sequoia. Access either by motorized or nonmotorized means would also be restricted. Current recreational uses — camping, hunting, fishing, hiking — would be curtailed. Limitations on access would effectively close off large areas of this preserve that are currently utilized by visitors. The question remains, why? Unfortunately, not that the current structure for protecting the giant sequoia is inadequate. If that were the case, this subcommittee would be categorizing and pre- senting evidence to support that contention. The supporters of the legislation, I believe, cannot make that ar- gument. Instead, this legislation represents their vision of what re- ality should be and their desire to impose that vision on the rest of society. In order to understand how we got to this hearing room today, I think we have to go back to 1988 and the land management plan and when it was adopted. The plan was immediately challenged by ■ ' ■ I ' 6, just about everyone: the timber industry, environmental groups, the State of California, the livestock industry, and various rec- reational groups. Instead of proceeding with their appeals, a mediation process was agreed upon, and if this sounds familiar in terms of a model of the desert plan, it is very familiar to a number of us. What hap- pens is you bring these various interest groups together, you sit them down, and you begin negotiating the process of accommoda- tion and compromise to reach what is the mediated settlement agreement. That agreement fully protects the giant sequoia, and I think you will hear testimony from experts and professionals who not only know a lot but have devoted their professional careers to making sure that the giant sequoia is protected. As you might guess, that kind of process is not an easy one. There are opportunities for give and take. Unfortunately, some folks left the table. They walked away, and they did what has been done in the past. They attempted to take their vision, put it into legislation, and move their vision without participating in the fundamental democratic process of give and take. Those who worked on the mediated settlement put in long hours attempting to reach an agreement that would accommodate inter- ests but fundamentally preserve the giant sequoias. They signed off on the agreement not because they got what they wanted, but be- cause they understood what the process was supposed to be. If we then enact this legislation, we not only throw away the me- diated settlement, but we once again reinforce in the minds of many that what you should do is not sit down and work out your differences with competing interests to make sure that the fun- damental purpose is to protect something, but that, rather, go find some friends in Congress, introduce a piece of legislation, and hope that you can ram it through the process so that your vision be- comes reality. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, when you consider the costs involved in implementing this legislation, that you take a look at not just the jobs that are going to be lost in an area that des- perately needs them but also the direct costs to the Treasury. Comments were made that timber has been cut in terms of 'Taelow cost." Let me tell you that the accounting procedures devel- oped by the Forest Service at the direction of Congress require that two specific findings be made before a forest is considered to have a below-cost sales program: First, the 3-year average net revenue before pa5rments to the State must be negative; second, the 3-year average long-term net benefits must also be negative. For two of the past 3 years, revenues generated by the Sequoia National Forest timber program have exceeded the cost of the pro- gram. I do not think you can argue that the timber sales have been below cost. I do not have to tell you that in this economy, especially in Cali- fornia, any jobs lost, any opportunities, especially if there is no rea- son for losing them, are significant. The other problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the regional forester implemented an interim management plan for the protection of the California spotted owl in virtually the same area. We are prohib- ited from cutting any timber with a trunk diameter of more than 30 inches. The interim plan probably will be in effect for another year, and the details have not been completely worked out, but this area is being impacted by a number of Government decisions. This would simply be one more added, and I want to underscore the fact that in no way would it enhance the protection of the giant se- quoia. It would put into legislation the vision. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want you to listen to testimony following ours because they will be experts, and what they will tell you is that the science of managing our resources is an evolving one. What we thought was proper and appropriate a generation ago we now find not only is perhaps not proper and appropriate but in fact damaging to the very thing that we tried to preserve. I believe the structure that we currently have is one which al- lows for this evolving science. I hope that by the end of the day, you will find yourself in agreement with my assessment that this bill is totally unnecessary because it offers no measurable enhance- ment of protection for the giant sequoias. The process that has resulted in the current arrangement is a positive one. It is one which will result in a science that will pro- tect the sequoias. And, more importantly, Mr. Chairman, it rein- forces the belief in the fact that the way you resolve problems is to sit down and work with each other. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas of California appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Our next panelist is the Honorable Richard Lehman, Member of Congress from the State of California. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. LEHMAN, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Lehman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appre- ciate your holding this hearing today, and I am grateful for the op- portunity to testify before the subcommittee on a bill that is very relevant to my district and, admittedly, to the State and to the Na- tion, as well. My district, as was pointed out, includes portions of both the Si- erra and Sequoia National Forests, the two forests that are in- cluded in the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve that this bill would create. At the outset, I want to thank the many interested people who have traveled a great distance today to testify on this bill, as it is going to affect their lives very greatly. I must begin by stating, however, that this is not really a hear- ing about preserving giant sequoia. I think we can all agree that giant sequoia are some of the most magnificent biological speci- mens this Earth has to offer, and they should be protected. I am one legislator who has personally carried legislation to protect giant sequoia when I got property transferred from the Stanislaus National Forest to Mountain Home State Park in Califomia a cou- ple of years ago. 8 Rather, what this hearing is really about is how our Nation should manage its national forests. Although there remains a de- bate about how best to maintain stands of giant sequoia, we know enough now to say that the methods revolve around uses of me- chanical manipulation and controlled fire. In fact, many scientists tell us that establishing a preserve which excludes mechginical ma- nipulation and seeks to eliminate uses of controlled fire could se- verely hinder the ability of giant sequoia to regenerate and survive. Experience with a variety of management styles in the Sequoia- Kings Canyon National Park, in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, in the State-managed Mountain Home State Forest, on private lands and other State-managed forest lands, has aptly dem- onstrated this contention. Rather than simply deal with issues affecting the giant sequoia, this bill would set aside 442,000 acres adjacent to three national parks and the John Muir Wilderness as a permanent preserve. This would effectively take all the remaining land-based resource in the South and Central Sierras and make it off limits to timber harvesting and other uses such as grazing. This is property which was not included in the three national parks in my district, not included in the California Wilderness Act, which passed this Congress and I supported in 1984. This would take all of the rest of the land base, as I have pointed out, and leave virtually nothing for other purposes. I am afraid that many of my friends in the environmental com- munity believe we should stop timber harvesting on all national forest lands, and what better place to begin than forest lands that contain the majestic and romantic giant sequoia? H.R. 2153 establishes a 442,000-acre zone, only a small portion of which actually contains giant sequoia, inside of which there shall be restrictions on a number of multiple uses. Management of this zone would be driven by an advisory board with certain specific limitations on how best to accomplish that management. What this aspect of the bill denies is that some of the best science about how to manage giant sequoias is already being ap- plied to the benefit of giant sequoia stands. Last Congress, the Nat- ural Resources Committee's General Oversight Subcommittee, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on management of giant sequoia in Visalia, a few miles from the trees themselves. Mr. Dooley, a member of this committee, was there. Passions ran high, and that debate was polarized. Based on that hearing and subsequent readings and discussions, I came to the conclusion that the giant sequoia are best managed under a flexible management regime. The giant sequoia have not survived these millennia because they lack resilience. The giant se- quoia are extremely hardy species, and we should manage them properly. As I mentioned earlier, H.R. 2153 is premised on the belief that our national forests are best placed in preserves. As an avid hiker and outdoorsman, I will admit that this proposition does have some narrow appeal, but it is completely unrealistic. To preserve forested areas, this Nation creates parks and wilderness areas, both of which we have in the vicinity of this area. If what the committee chooses to do is set this area up as off lim- its to all kinds of activities, then it ought to be honest and up front about it and just pass a new California wilderness bill or introduce one of them. This is a de facto way to back into the same type of management without going through the wilderness process. I personally also reject the notion that the best way to manage our forests in California is through this piecemeal, patch something up here, do something over there, tree by tree, species by species method. I think it is creating a very unhealthy forest, and I think passage of this legislation would make that even worse. I believe we have to begin to look at our forests in California from a more holistic standpoint, trying to deal with the health of the entire ecosystem, rather than setting up this area here and saying you cannot do this, setting up this area over here and say- ing you cannot do that, and then a corridor between them and say- ing you cannot do anjrthing in that area, as well. It makes no sense, it is extremely frustrating, and it is simply not a good way to manage what is a very important resource. Also, I reject the notion that we ought to take the entire land base here and put it off limits to any timber harvesting at all, which is really what this bill is about, and I am not going to defend all the past management practices of the Forest Service with re- spect to timber harvesting. Some of them have been very egregious and ought to be changed. Many of them are being changed under the current management. Passing a bill like this is not going to help that process one bit. And unilaterally coming in and saying there is no more timber har- vesting at all in this area is going to be extremely destructive to the communities. I respectfully reject Mr. Brown's contention here that we are only talking about a few hundred jobs. We are talking about several thousand jobs. We are talking about whole communities that are devastated when the primary business in town is shut down, we are talking about all the related impacts such as we are already seeing with the rising cost of timber in this country as we face a variety of issues affecting our timber industry, not just the mainte- nance of giant sequoia trees. By the Forest Service's reckoning, using the methods set forth by this Congress to determine whether or not there are below-cost sales, there are no below-cost sales in the Sequoia National Forest. That is a moot issue. That is not to say that the Forest Service ought not to improve its management. That is not to say that they have not done things wrong in the past. But I think going about this approach is the wrong way to go. I hope in the next weeks to introduce my own legislation in this Congress dealing with forests and their he£dth in California and to deal with it from the standpoint of looking at the entire region, not picking out one area and targeting one particular industry in that area and saying we don't want you doing what you are doing any- more. I hope the subcommittee will reject this bill. I hope the sub- committee, however, will stay on top of the issue of managing our forests in California. We need to do a better job than we are. Thank you. 10 [The prepared statement of Mr. Lehman appears at the conclu- sion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. Next, the Honorable Anna Eshoo, Member of Congress from the State of California. STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to tes- tify on behalf of H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act. This bill not only helps preserve the largest, most majestic trees in the world; it would save American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars by putting an end to below-cost timber sales in the Sequoia National Forest. We are all familiar with giant sequoia trees, which are thousands of years old and can be almost 300 feet tall. But more important than their aesthetic beauty, these giants play a key role in the very fragile ecosystem which is threatened by current Forest Service policies. According to a 1989 Audubon Society study, there were only 41,000 acres of thickly wooded, old-growth forest left in our Nation. There are even fewer acres now, and only 10 percent of them are protected in wilderness areas. The Forest Service allowed more than 1 million board feet of giant sequoia to be removed in 13 tim- ber sales from sequoia groves during the 1980's. The fact is, timber is being cut at more than twice the sustain- able rate because forest planners greatly overestimated potential growth rates. Even with the Sequoia National Forest's terrible re- forestation success rate, planners assumed almost all the forest would be reforested with only one planting. As a result, the forest is disappearing faster than nature and people can replace it. Worst of all, taxpayers are subsidizing the destruction of the giant sequoia ecosystem. Although timber companies pay the For- est Service an average of $3.5 million per year for the timber har- vested in the Sequoia National Forest, the Forest Service must spend up to $8.3 million per year to build logging roads and admin- ister the sales. It is estimated that taxpayers have spent $45 million in the last 10 years to log the Sequoia National Forest, which only provides 1 percent of the wood and wood fiber used Einnually in the United States. H.R. 2153, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor, would end the wasteful practice of below-cost timber sales and fi- nally protect the remaining groves of giant sequoia by creating a Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve. It also provides for worker training, counseling, and placement, with an emphasis on potential new types of employment in recreation and restoration of our eco- system. Mr. Chairman, I believe we must act now to preserve these areas for our posterity or risk the tragedy of losing them forever, and I underscore that word. Thank you again for allowing me to address your subcommittee, and thank you for holding this important hearing. 11 [The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Ms. Eshoo. I would also like to submit for the record, Mr. Chair- man, this. It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and with your permission, I would like to ask that, starting with Mr. Dooley, this just be passed around for the Members to look at, and thank you again for allowing me to testify here this morning. Mr. Rose. Thank you very much for coming. The pictures will be made a part of the file that will accompany the record, and we ap- preciate your testimony. Our last panel member, the Honorable Arthur Ravenel, Jr., Member of Congress from the State of South Carolina. STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR RAVENEL, JR., A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROUNA Mr. Ravenel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to appear before you today. You and I both come from the Southeast, you from North Caro- lina and me from South Carolina. I imagine some of the panel members would wonder why in the world a Congressman like me, over 3,000 miles away, would come to express an interest in the preservation of the ecosystem in which these giant sequoias grow. Ever since I have been a Member of Congress, I have heard about the way the Forest Service was assisting in the devastation of the ancient forests of the Northwest and the western areas of our country. Three years ago, I availed myself of an opportunity to go and see just exactly what was going on. We toured some of the ancient for- ests of the west coast, and when we got to the Olympic Peninsula, where the central portion of the peninsula is occupied by the Olym- pic National Park, and then we took a look at what was going on and being permitted by the Forest Service in the Olympic National Forest, I came away just absolutely outraged, disgusted, and em- barrassed that the U.S. Grovemment, through its Forest Service, was permitting the devastation to go on out there, which was and in some instances — in some instances — is still going on. I would like to identify myself with the remarks made by the lady who preceded me from California insofar as the cost figures of the timber sales going on out there. Now, where you and I come from, Mr. Chairman, a 100-foot loblolly pine is something to behold. Very few get to be that high. When I went out there and walked in those ancient forests and looked up at trees 250 to 300 feet high, I could hardly believe my eyes that such marvels of nature existed, and that they are threat- ened in any way just appalls me. And so I enthusiastically endorse Mr. Brown's legislation and certainly hope that this subcommittee will look favorably upon it. We have in South Carolina just remnants of ancient forests. Very near Charleston, we have the Biedler Forest, which is an area of only 3,500 acres — that is all — of what we call down there virgin for- est, not ancient forest, but it is the same thing. This is a swamp of bald cypress, and we have trees there that are estimated to be 12 1,500 to 2,000 years old, not as old as some of the ancient trees on the west coast but, by our standards, very, very old. I recall one day, about 8 or 10 years ago, I took one of my sons, who happens to be Down syndrome with an educable IQ of only 17; on a cold New Year's Day I took him down, and we walked a mile down in this virgin forest on a bright, cold, clear day. We got down to the end of the boardwalk. His name is William. I asked him, "William, where are you?" His response to me was, "Church." That was his reaction to that ancient forest. I just wonder what in the world this little guy would say if he were to go into one of those ancient forests and look at these giant sequoias. The problem you have is that what we are tr5dng to do is we are trjdng to preserve not just the sequoias themselves but the eco- system— that is the basic word of what we are talking about — in which these sequoias exist, and, of course, there are very few of them, relatively speaking. Of course, it is very easy to replicate a forest. We have the na- tional forests in South Carolina, most of which are used for timber production, which are proceeding satisfactorily in the program that we have down there. I am an active participant in the drawing of the forest plans. The Francis Marion is the one closest to the urban area of the greater Charleston area, and most of it is about 80 per- cent. Post-Hugo, the plan now is to continue in timber production. But preserving an ecosystem is extremely difficult, and I think that most recognized experts will tell us that replicating an eco- system can only be done over a very long period of time, millennia, naturally, but replicating it artificially for timber production is very difficult. You take the Biedier Forest there. There Eire 3,500 acres. It is the core portion of this forest. They have trees in there. They have loblolly in the higher areas. They have black gum, and they also have tupelo. Certainly those trees could be — could be — taken out for timber sale. But if you remove the tupelo, the black gum, and the loblolly from the area, that destroys in fact the ecosystem. It would seem to me that that would be the problem out there on the west coast, and that is why I think that, in these particular areas, these jewels in the crown of these forests over there, these sequoias, that the entire ecosystem should be protected. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rose. Thank you, sir. I thank all the members of the panel. I asked Mr. Brown to come up here not for any reason other than to suggest that I have a couple of appointments during the length of this hearing, and I need somebody to preside. I believe I am going to ask Mr. Farr, if he is here, if he would take the chair in a few minutes. But all of the panelists, including Mr. Brown, are available to be questioned now by other members of the subcommittee. Are there any questions by any of you for our panel? Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to ask the gentleman from California, Rick, a question, if I may. Mr. Rose. All right. Mr. VOLKMER. Rick, most of this area is within your district, I understand. 13 Mr. Lehman. My guess is probably about 70 or 75 percent of it, and Bill has probably 25 percent of it. Mr. Thomas of California. I have the former. [Laughter.l Mr. VOLKMER. And as I understand it, you have spent consider- able time studying this whole situation? Mr. Lehman. Yes, and I am very familiar with the area. I am a pretty avid outdoorsman myself, and like I said, I have supported setting aside a lot of area. The other problem here, Mr. Thomas alluded to this. About 2 or 3 years ago, there was a big meeting of everyone involved on this issue, and they put together what is called a mediated settlement. That was an agreement between the timber interests, the Forest Service, and about 17 interested groups. After months of really tough negotiating, they came up with a proposal that they all signed off on for management of the forests. It was controversial. People had a give-and-take on all sides, but it was, I think, a landmark agreement. I think what needs to be done is to enforce that agreement. If there are problems with the way it is being managed, then it ought to be dealt with in that context. But I think, for me, I kind of feel that there is kind of a betrayal here to go around through the back door now and say, well, we have the mediated settlement, but now we want to support a bill that will take all that property and just totally obviate the agreement that everybody sat down and made. I don't know how we can reach agreements and consensus in that kind of atmosphere. I firmly believe the only way we can manage our natural re- sources, not just our timber but probably everything today, is by reaching consensus among the different parties. Otherwise, they just sue each other forever, which is the situation that we are in here. I would like to go back to that settlement, which I think was a good one. If people have problems with the way it is being imple- mented, they should bring them out. That can be handled. But now to go and say we are going to take all this property, 442,000 acres, virtually the entire remaining land base, and create a new thing called a preserve, which is a de facto wilderness with- out calling it a wilderness, and say everything is off limits in there is simply not right. Mr. Volkmer. The sequoia is a long-living tree? Mr. Lehman. They are supposedly the oldest living things, a cou- ple thousand years old. Mr. Volkmer. And they are a very hardy tree? Mr. Lehman. They are a very hardy tree, but I think past man- agement practices, most of which if not all of which, I think, have been corrected, have posed some problems. We cut a lot of trees at the beginning of this century, a very ter- rible occurrence. You cannot do that an3rmore. But these trees are already protected by order of President Bush. They are already pro- tected by order of the U.S. Forest Service. You cannot cut them. And they are further protected by that mediated settlement agree- ment in the region. The issue here is not protecting these trees. We are going to pro- tect these trees. I will be the first person to stand up and demand 14 that they be protected. The issue is whether or not we are going to set aside 442,000 acres and take all the uses that are on that property and say you are not going to be able to do that. I just do not think that is a good way to go about managing the property. Mr. VOLKMER. No further questions. Mr. Rose. Thank you. Can I ask you two one question, and that is, tell me about the negotiated settlement. Was it ever fully consummated? Mr. Thomas seemed to imply that people walked away from the table. Mr. Lehman. Well, let me explain my version of what happened as I know it. There were environmental groups — and maybe they can speak to this later — who were at the table. Seventeen groups in total, all but three — my number may be wrong, and it may be 17 and 14 signed, but I think it is 20 — and that is a heck of a con- sensus when you get that many different groups to agree, because they all have strong opinions here. But they agreed, the Forest Service agreed, and the timber inter- ests, if you will, agreed. Then the three environmental Mr. Rose. Agreed to a plan? Mr. Lehman. Yes. They signed it. This is a document. Now, the other three that did not sign went out and sued. And so from my point of view, what do we need, unanimity all the time? When we have that kind of majority, we have to go forward. We have to have some certainty here. Mr. Rose. What was the result of the suit? Mr. Lehman. The forest supervisor may know what the latest is here. [Pause.] Mr. Lehman. I am informed that there have been several law- suits. I am not familiar with all of them, and they are 50-50 in who wins and who loses. Mr. Thomas of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the point that Rick made needs to be underscored. That is that it was not that all of the environmentalists walked out on the settlement; it \vas that a minority of the minority did not get, once again, their vision completely locked in. There are responsible environmentalists who fully believe that the plan completely protects the sequoias, and they agreed that the plan was a good one. I am informed by the people who manage the forests — I am sorry. Rick— that I have 75 percent and you have 25 percent. I think you should understand that he has 75 percent and 25 per- cent, and I have 25 percent and 75 percent, and I will tell you why that is the way you should look at it. I personally resent the tone of people who say they are the ones who are here to protect our environment and these trees. Rick and I represent people who live and daily relate to this natural environ- ment. I have walked the site lines in Monache Meadows for the wilderness bill. I represent those areas. Rick and I are very proud of those areas. It is interesting that people who have destroyed their areas are now concerned about saving these, and we should join together to make sure that we do. But nature is competition. Competition breeds winners. The giant sequoias are winners in terms of competition. I have had peo- 15 pie come up to a giant sequoia and see a bum scar and say, "Oh, now awful. They were almost destroyed." I say, "No. Fire is re- newal, and that makes sure that the giant sequoias continue, be- cause they have evolved over time to protect themselves." The greatest threat to the giant sequoia is the stupidity of man and the kind of legislation that you have in front of you. Mr. Rose. Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Farr. Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have a question to the panel but particularly to Con- gressman Lehman. You stated that the giant sequoias are pro- tected. This is in the national forests, that we will not cut any giant sequoias? Mr. Lehman. Well, there is a proclamation of President Bush dated July 14, 1992. Mr. Farr. So what trees are we talking about cutting under the agreement plan? Mr. Lehman. The agreement plan, as Mr. Thomas accurately ex- plained it, set up an area around those trees and said you could not do anything within 500 feet of them. In other words, it was agreed not only that you just cannot cut the trees, but there would be a zone of 500 feet in the vicinity of trees in which nothing could take place. Mr. Farr. So you can cut giant sequoia redwoods; you just can- not cut the ones that have been identified in Mr. Lehman. No, you cannot cut any of them, no. Mr. Farr. Well, then, what species are we cutting? Mr. Lehman. We are not cutting giant sequoias today. We are cutting ponderosa, white pine, lodgepoles. Mr. Thomas of California. But let me add that there is going to be a requirement based upon the California spotted owl concern that no tree with a trunk diameter greater than 30 inches is going to be cut. So not only do you have the sequoias protected, but you have large trees that are eventually going to fall over and die of old age that are going to be protected, and that you have layer upon layer of protection in this area. Mr. Farr. Well, the reason we have all that is because there has been quite a lot of abuse, and it has been abuse by Federal regu- lators on Federal lands. I think what we are facing here, and I rep- resent an area, like you, that is very sensitive, the Big Sur Coast, and there is always concern by the people who live in those areas that they sort of want a hands-off attitude by Government. But we are in a State of 3 1 million people, I think, shifting from a historical policy of using public lands for resource management, grazing, mining, cutting, to recreation. Mr. Lehman. Mr. Farr, let's get to the bone here. We have in California millions of acres of wilderness passed in the Wilderness Act. In my district alone, we have three national parks set up. At the same time, we have the spotted owl controversy. We have tre- mendous cutbacks in the logging. You know, they used to cut 120 million, 140 million board feet on the Sierra National Forest; they are now down to less than 50 million board feet. Given the huge decisions that we have to make on the spotted owl, on the fur-bearing animals, on all the other ESA things, is this 16 the right thing to do without sorting out any of those things, to plop down 442,000 acres right now and say this is off Umits to any- thing, irrespective of what happens in the rest of Sierra Nevadas vis-a-vis all these other contentious things that are coming up? I don't think so. Mr. Farr. Well, as you know, politics is the art of compromise, and there is certainly some compromise in this arena. But the bill is worthy of note to discuss this issue because of such abuse that has gone on, and the question is whether the settlement agreement is better than the legislation. Mr. Rose. Can I interject here, off the record? [Comments off the record.] Mr. Lehman. I just gave you the numbers on what the current cuts are and the debate we are having out there over how to man- age all the forests in California at the present time. I think this ought to be dealt with in that context. Mr. Fare. How is your bill going to differ from this bill? Mr. Lehman. Well, the bill I am working on — and I had hoped I would have it by today, but we are not quite ready — will deal with the whole forest in California from a holistic standpoint, not from one species at a time. We are not saving any species, either, not from one stand of trees at a time, not by setting up corridors or preserves all over the place; by getting real scientific evaluation of what the forest needs to be healthy and support all the uses that society and our culture want to get from it. This does none of those. This just says we are going to let one side that does not want an5rthing to happen here at all on this huge land area, adjacent to areas that we have already set aside, lock it up in that fashion. You know, maybe some of this area ought to be treated dif- ferently, but this bill or this approach does not do it. Like I said, I think it would be more straightforward to say we ought to do a new wilderness bill in California rather than to come out with this hodgepodge of legislation to preserve this over here, set this aside over there, with no overall plan except to gradually diminish the land base available for other uses. Mr. Farr. I have no further questions. Mr. Peterson [assuming chair]. Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a pre- pared statement for the record, then some questions. [The prepared statement of lilr. Doolittle follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle, a Representative in Congress From the State of California Mr. Chairman, today the committee is considering legislation, the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve Act, which would: Cost the Federal Government $10 mil- lion it doesn't have; cost State and local governments $2 million they don't have; cost jobs the State can't absorb; eliminate fire control practices, creating a 442,000- acre fire trap which could result in tremendous losses to the giant sequoias the bill is supposed to preserve; and leaves the rights of private property owners within the preserve in doubt. Why? So we can protect giant sequoias already protected by Presidential procla- mation. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that today's hearing will demonstrate that this legis- lation is not only flawed, but inappropriate in times of recession and deficit spend- ing. 17 Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am concerned with some of the findings in this bill, and the testimony we have heard so far raises those issues. For example, finding No. 11: At the current rate of logging in the Sequoia National Forest, it is estimated that all of the ecologically significant unprotected forest would be destroyed within 7 to 8 years. Well, we have heard testimony that they are not cutting any of these giant sequoias. So I would like to just suggest to the author that maybe you take a look at that as you examine suggestions made by the committee. Second, the point in finding No. 12: Removal of timber from the Sequoia National Forest is done at a net loss to the U.S. Treasury of more than $8 million annusilly over and above the amounts ap- propriated annually by the Congress for the administration and op- eration of the forests. The information I have says that there are no below-cost timber sales on this forest, so perhaps Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, when he testifies, will clarify that issue. We keep hearing repeated in these sorts of hearings in this com- mittee and in another on which I sit this idea about we are logging trees beyond the sustainable yield. As far as I know, that is not the case. People who are in the business of logging trees want to make sure they are in business down the road, and in order to do that, they have to have trees to log. So I would challenge that finding, finding 14, sind ask for further information on that. The cost is £m issue. The CBO, I think we have in here some place, says that it is going to cost a net cost of $9 million over 5 years, but then the Forest Service, in a document I have, is saying the total cost to implement this act will range from $24 million to $60 million per year. So I think we need to pin that down. In my own mind, as one Representative, I cannot justify the U.S. borrowing money to buy more land. I mean, I frankly think it is outrageous the amount that we have now, and that we are con- stantly adding to this base. So that is a particular problem I have. On the specifics of the scientific advisory panel that is created, I think as far as it goes, that is good, but I would just suggest that we might want to include therein someone, a scientist knowledge- able in fire management, because I think the potential for fire in this sort of situation being created here would be a key concern. Also, I think we ought to have someone included on that panel who would give some input with reference to recreation. I am not clear to what extent recreation will be permitted in this bill. The bill talks about restoring things to the natural state. There is some reference I see in the bill to hunting and fishing being allowed, but it also can be restricted under the terms of that bill. But I do not know. Beyond hunting and fishing, are there other types of recreation that are to be allowed? If anybody wants to at- tempt to answer any of those questions, that would be fine, or if there is subsequent technical testimony that is coming forth, I would welcome that, as well. Mr. Thomas of California. Well, Mr. Doolittle, the recreational activities are going to be greatly circumscribed in terms of a priori determining which areas you are going to be able to move through, even precluding those areas that most people who are in the busi- 18 ness and science of this indicate that there would be no problem at all. As you add up in the money in terms of the cost of the bill, be sure to add about $30 million that will be lost from the local econ- omy, which normally does not show up on these ledger sheets. I appreciate the gentlewoman from the Bay area indicating that they are going to reach out with job training and job counseling. My folk want real work with real wages. It is interesting to me that when there were antiquated military bases that were to be closed in particular areas of the State, some of these people came unglued and fought to preserve those bases because of the jobs, and I certainly believe that we should reach out with job training and job counseling. But when you take a look at the decisions that have been made over the last 5 years — I find it interesting that our colleague men- tioned a 1989 study — the science is evolving. The Yellowstone fire gave us significant new information. We are beginning to look at the world differently than we did, and I would tell my friend from California, all you have to do is go and look at the hydraulic min- ing areas in terms of devastation and destruction. Anyone can turn back the clock and show where we made mis- takes. The problem is locking in current knowledge in a way that you cannot improve your ability to deal with this issue in the fu- ture. That is the fundamental problem with this. The beliefs of a generation ago were wrong, but today's beliefs are not necessarily the best way to deal with the problem tomorrow. What we are asking is that you not stop the clock in terms of the learning and the science of how to deal with these magnificent specimens but that you continue with the current structure, which is an evolving one and which will give the giant sequoias the best chance of survival. Mr. Peterson. Do any other members have questions? Rep- resentative Dooley. Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to have my written statement inserted into the record. Mr. Peterson. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:] 19 Statement of the Honorcible Cal Dooley before the Subcotrenittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 March 9, 1994 Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for letting me sit in with your subcommittee for this hearing on H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993. I feel very strongly that this bill is the wrong solution to ensure the future vicJDility of giant sequoia in our National Forests. Many of my constituents share this view, and several of them have traveled to Washington today to testify at this hearing. First is Larry Duysen from Sierra Forest Products, which is situated in Terra Bella, California. Second is Jack Shannon, a rancher from Porterville, California. Third is Jeff Lilley, representing Hume Lake Christian Cair^. And, finally, Frank Schlitz, a contractor with a home in the Sequoia National Forest. All of these folks have taken time away from running their businesses to let you and the other members of the Subcommittee know how misguided H.R. 2153 is. As you know, H.R. 2153 would set up a 442,425-acre forest preserve encompassing land from the Sierra and Sequoia national forests. All logging would be prohibited in the preserve. In addition, mining and geothermal exploration would be prohibited, and over time grazing would be prohibited. I think that a few things must be made clear from the outset. First, it is misleading for the proponents of this legislation to insinuate that all the remaining giant sequoia groves can be found in the Sierra and Sequoia national forests. In fact, the majority of giamt sequoia groves are in Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks and on state-owned land, county- owned Ismd and privately owned land. Second, it is important to understand that a forest preserve is a new public land designation and would require federal expenditure to maintain. I am aware that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has completed a cost-estimate of H.R. 2153 and has determined that implementation of this legislation would result in direct federal spending that would be subject to the pay-as-you-go provisions of the budget act. The giant sequoia trees are truly a national treasure and I strongly support efforts to protect them. However, H.R. 2153 is a drastic and unnecessary piece of legislation that would ban all logging in huge sections of two national forests. I believe that sound management practices to protect the giant sequoia trees can include logging in other areas of the forests. To this end, I strongly support the provisions of the mediated settlement agreement that was reached for the Sequoia National Forest. The agreement prescribes management practices for giant sequoia groves . 20 Specifically, the mediated settlement agreement provides for a 1,000 -foot buffer zone beyond the outermost giant sequoia tree in a grove until final mapping of the groves is completed. After that, a 500-foot buffer will be established where only efforts to preserve the groves will be allowed. In an additional 500 -foot buffer, known as the "grove influence zone, " no action can be taken that will impact the grove ecosystem or lead to physical disturbance in the grove. The mediated settlement was a process in which the U.S. Forest Service, the timber industry, the environmental community and other interested parties hammered out an agreement that addressed each group's concerns. While no group agreed with the management prescriptions totally, it was clearly a balanced solution. I believe that this process should be used as a model for future management of our National Forests. However, legislation like H.R. 2153 undermines this and any future compromise between industry and the environmental community. It is clear that most scientists believe that some sort of management is needed to ensure the continued health of giant sequoia. Because giant sequoia are not shade- tolerant, large open areas are needed to provide a viable environment for new giant sequoia. Prohibition of commercial logging will force the Forest Service to absorb the cost of any management activity that may be needed on the Forests. The Forest Service is in the process of overseeing an independent scientific panel study of the entire Sierra Nevada Range. It is my hope that the team will spend a significant cimount of time examining the giant sequoia groves. The scientists conducting the study are expected to make recommendations regarding the management of these forests. I believe that any changes in the management practices should be based on scientific evidence that will be provided through this study. This is a special issue to me. Like many San Joaquin Valley residents, I have spent a great deal of time in the Sierra Nevada and particularly in Sequoia National Forest. As a youngster, I marveled at the vastness of the Sierra and was fascinated by the size and age of the big trees. I was also intrigued by the many ways man put the forest to work for him. As I grew older, I became more aware of the need for a forest that through sound management allows for both commerce and preservation of a special resource. I believe that the two interests can co- exist. I look forward to the testimony that will be presented today and hope that my colleagues on the Committee will come away with the understanding that H.R. 2153 is the wrong solution to the management of the Sequoia and Sierra national forests. Thank you. 21 Mr. DOOLEY. Also, at this time, I would like to enter into the record a statement in opposition to this legislation. [The prepared statement of the Tulare County Board of Super- visors appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. DoOLEY. I would also like to make a few comments in line with some of the testimony of the panelists and some of the ques- tions. Everyone is committed to moving forward in the most desirable fashion, and I find some of the testimony rather intriguing. I guess the concern is that the approach that is being offered before us today is actually going to place greater limitations on the ability to manage this ecosystem, that it is actually in fact going to put these natural resources more greatly at risk. The greatest risk to the Sequoia redwood trees today is not by cutting, because there are proscriptions by both the National For- est Service and by the President that they will not be cut. They are at greatest risk primarily because of fire hazsird and the growth of the white woods that occurs in these areas that poses the natural disaster which is going to lead to the demise of more redwood trees than a lumberman's saw will ever create. I guess the other thing that is most disturbing to a lot of us that represent this region — and I represented about 75 percent of this region before redistricting about a year ago, and our family has property in this area, and I have spent all my life up there during the summers and different times of the year — is that the concern that a lot of us have is that there is agreement that perhaps some of the management techniques of the past few years were not the best proposals out there, not because of intentional mistakes but because of the evolving science that Mr. Thomas talked about. I think that is why a lot of us had great faith when this medi- ated settlement agreement was engaged in, when we had the envi- ronmental community, the timber industry, and the National For- est Service coming together to try to develop a prescription for management of the forest. I guess a lot of us are almost insulted and are very concerned that some of the same parties that were a part of that process are now actively advocating that this legislation be adopted. What that sets as a precedent is, how can we expect the group of people that are involved in the Quincy Library Group or some of the other groups that are trying to locally develop some mediated agreements in management, what is the message that we are sending them by considering this legislation? We are basically, by considering this legislation, telling all the parties that are involved that there is no benefit to sitting down and talking and trying to work out some solutions to these prob- lems. I think that is probably what is of greater concern than any other about this issue, because I came to Congress thinking that I had the ability to help broker and facilitate some of the com- promises between the environmental community and some of the resource users, and to me, this is clearly a breach of good faith, and it is something which I think is setting a terrible precedent that can allow some mutually agreed-upon solution in dealing with our resources across the Western United States. 22 Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. May I apologize if I appear to be taking advantage of my position on the committee here, merely because I am. [Laughter.] A couple of points I would like to have made clear. The mediated settlement, as I understand it, expires in 1995 and is supposed to be replaced by a permanent plan from the Forest Service. Am I cor- rect in this? Mr. Lehman. That is my understanding. Mr. Brown. So we are not talking about a permanent plan estab- lished by the mediated settlement; we are talking about a tem- porary arrangement that expires next year. Mr. Lehman. Well, in the same fashion that we sunset legisla- tion around here, if it is a date certain that that happens. But that was done so that they could look at the results of it — I think that was prudent. One thing that Cal and I have considered is putting the mediated settlement into law. Mr. Dooley. If I can comment on that, the mediated settlement agreement, as I understand it, was to be adopted as part of the for- est management plan and would in fact be in place until a new management plan was to be adopted, which was in fact going to go beyond 1995, I believe until the year — I think it would be an- other 10 years, if I am correct. So it does not expire in 1995. It actually has at least another 10 years, at which point there would be a new management plan that would be developed that would, hopefully, involve another medi- ated settlement that could provide for the management of the for- est. Mr. Thomas of California. Yes. Just to elaborate on that, because my colleague is correct, it is open-ended for that time period until a management plan is put into place. It is in effect until another one replaces it. I would say that the process by which it was developed is prob- ably more important than the time line for how long it would be in existence, because it was an effort to change the old ways, and it was a positive one, which we are undermining by this legislation. Mr. Brown. Mr. Thomas, the Forest Management Act provides for a public process for comment on any forest management plans that are developed. The Forest Service has not gone through that process yet, as I understand it. There will be ample opportunity not only for environmental groups but for all public groups to have input to the process by which the final plan is adopted. Mr. Thomas of California. Are you telling me, then, that your legislation is premature? Mr. Brown. No, I am not telling you that. As a matter of fact, I think it is highly mature, not premature, in view of the failure of the Forest Service to develop a plan and the historical degrada- tion of the forest over the years from the lack of an adequate man- agement plan. One additional question, and this is somewhat of a personal mat- ter. I understand that you gentlemen represent the forest, and oth- ers that have a close relationship to it. But I also understand that the annual gross revenue from the recreational use of the forest is ( I 23 $1.2 billion and that the estimated gross revenue from timber sales is about 10 percent of that, perhaps $162 million, is the figure that I have here. Now, the $1.2 billion revenue to the area from recreational use does not come from your constituents; it comes from the constitu- ents of the other 50 congressional districts in California, and it comes from the constituents of the other 433 congressional districts in the United States, plus overseas. I am a little bit at a loss to have you indicate, perhaps not know- ingly, that those of us who represent these constituents who produce that $1.2 billion revenue stream to your district have no interest in protecting that. Mr. Lehman. Well, Mr. Thomas can respond, but I don't have a problem with you carrying this legislation. I think the American people own this property, and I have no proprietary interest be- cause it is in my district. I am more concerned about the substance of the bill, I suppose. But on the recreation issue, what is interesting to me is that it is not just the timber industry that has come to me opposed to this bill; it is the people who own recreational facilities who are really concerned that the effect of this bill will be to drive them out of business. Some of them will testify today, I assume, and you can address that at that point. But those people are very concerned about the effects of the bill, as well. Mr. Thomas of California. Mr. Brown, your sensitivity in terms of those people who represent the area should be completely under- stood, and that is, it is not that we resent people who in other parts of the country have an interest in this area. It is that the people who represent the area are not consulted, not involved or in any way allowed to indicate that they feel just as strongly as you do about the area. For some reason, since we represent the area, we are always pic- tured as the rapers and pillagers and the protectors are those who do not represent the area, and I frankly resent that, because I have worked hard to make sure that rational decisions are made in my area, and frankly, I have a greater risk in participating in that process than people who are outside the area. I might remind you that when you talk about the money gen- erated in terms of various areas, the amount generated by logging may be a relatively small percentage of the total, but it is 100 per- cent of their income. In addition to that, given the locking up of the giant sequoia area, for no reason other than the attempt to legislate a vision, will have an enormous detrimental effect on the ability to produce dol- lars through recreational activities, because what you have created is an inability to utilize this area in ways that are positive for all. In addition to that, the process of settlement that we have ar- rived at, and your unwillingness to let it work its will, has to be underscored by the statement of my colleagues, and that is, what do I tell these people after I have told them, "Sit down, work out your differences," and they have done so, and they turn right around and find out that it did not mean anything at all and that somebody else got to somebody, and they are going to get their vi- sion pushed through in legislation? 24 That is simply the wrong message. If the process is still ongoing, then let the process continue. If, at the end of the process, you be- lieve that it is a failed process, then move the legislation. Don't move the legislation in the middle of the process before it has been concluded. Mr. Brown. May I assure the two gentlemen, for whom I have the greatest respect, that any failures of adequate consultation with either or both of you and others who are interested will be remedied if I have an5rthing to do about it. We will consult very closely with you as this bill proceeds, if it does proceed. Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Mr, Farr. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Mr. Peterson. Briefly. We have a lot of panels here, and we probably ought to move on. Mr. Farr. Right, and I am sorry. Mr. Thomas of California. We need to get our constituents up here. Mr. Farr. One question. Mr. Thomas, I just read the bill. It is rather short. It is only 25 pages. Some of the difficulty I have with your testimony is that it seems that the bill incorporates an awful lot of the issues that you say have failed to be addressed. I mean, what it does is it creates an advisory board. The advisory board has to have public hearings and to set up plans for reimbursing the community for allowing graz- ing, for allowing payments to local governments, for allowing tim- ber cutting, for fire management plans. It would allow timber cut- ting for scientific purposes. It seems to me where the difficulty is here is that you have gone through a mediated settlement which is to expire and that this process tries to incorporate the issues in that mediated settlement for a long-range management plan of an ecosystem rather than just a timber harvesting plan. What I fail to see from your testimony or hear from your testi- mony is the recognition that the bill does try to incorporate an awful lot of the controversies that you indicate have not even been discussed. Mr. Thomas of California. Mr. Farr, none of us are naive here, and if you give me the opportunity to structure the result by hav- ing already determined the conclusion and then allow for various boards to meet and discuss structures, you have already won. The problem with the people who are pushing this legislation is that the current process is open ended, that we do not know the end result, that it will be an honest scientific endeavor to deter- mine it, and they do not like that risk. What this legislation does is lock in the conclusion and then let people play. Mr. Farr. How does it do that? Mr. Thomas of California. By the definition of a preserve and ex- cluding those opportunities. You can give me a commission after you have passed this legisla- tion, and I can show you failed result after failed result when the conclusion has already been reached. What is wrong with keeping the process open? That is my question. That is what we currently have. 25 Almost all of the environmental groups are continuing to partici- pate in the process. Only some have attempted to rush to a conclu- sion before the process is ended. My question to you is: Why can't we continue the current process that a majority of people believe is working? Mr. Farr. And what happens after the 1995 deadline? Mr. Thomas of California. No, there is no 1995 deadline. This agreement continues into effect until, from that activity, research, and understanding, a new plan is offered. There is no closed win- dow. The 1995 date is a phony deadline. Mr. Peterson. Mr. Pombo. Mr. Pombo. I just had a quick question of Mr. Brown. In this legislation, private property rights are treated very vaguely. One of the statements is that all of the property would re- turn to its natural state. How would that treat the private property that exists within the boundaries of this legislation, in specific the recreational opportunities that currently exist up there? How could they continue to exist if they were required by legislation to return to their natural state? Mr. Brown. I will not try to give you a definitive answer. The bill, I think, leans over backwards to protect the private property rights of all of those who have an interest, and that includes those who have the logging contracts and grazing contracts. Recreational uses are intended to be enhanced, not reduced, here, and there is provision for the development of trails and other kinds of facilities which will enhance the recreational activities in the area. Mr. Pombo. But there is a provision in the bill which requires that the property return to its natural state, and it is my under- standing that there are about 27,000 acres of private property that is included in this. Mr. Brown. There is no taking of private property involved in this bill, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Pombo. It is not an outright taking, but it is a regulatory taking, because you are taking it by surrounding it with rules £uid regulations which destroy roads and the current ability to access private property. It is not an outright taking. You will not actually pay them for it, but you will be taking it through regulation. Mr. Brown. We can discuss that later. I think you misinterpret the purpose of the regulatory structure that is to be placed here. It is not intended to deprive anyone of their rights. Most of the people who went into that forest and settled, ac- quired private property holdings for recreational purposes, summer homes, or homes of that sort, will find the value for that purpose enhanced as a result of this bill. Mr. Peterson. We want to thank everybody. We will dismiss this panel. I would like to call Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Welcome to the sub- committee. Your fuU statement will be made part of the record. 26 STATEMENT OF JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. J. Thomas. I would note that sitting behind me is Ron Stew- art, who is the regional forester from California, and Sandra Key, who is the forest supervisor on the Sequoia, the national forest in question, so if they whisper in my ear a lot, it is because they know the answers and I do not. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Agriculture regarding H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993. Although we are in agreement with many of the purposes of H.R. 2153, the Department of Agriculture recommends that this bill not be enacted. First, let me say that I am honored to deliver my first testimony to this important subcommittee as Chief of the Forest Service. I look forward to developing a good working relationship. I want to start off by sharing my core values which affect how I approach my new job that I think are germane. I share a land ethic put forward by an early Forest Service employee named Aldo Leopold, and I quote: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." That ethic accepts short-term constraints on human treatment of land to ensure long-term preservation of that integrity, stability, and beauty. I believe that human activity that is consistent with that ethic is properly within the realm of resource management op- tions. To return to the business at hand concerning the legislation con- sidered today, H.R. 2153 would designate approximately 442,425 acres of federally owned land within the Sequoia and Sierra Na- tional Forests in California as the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve. Giant sequoia trees are a national treasure, and the Forest Serv- ice is fully committed to perpetuating the groves for present and future generations. Perpetuation of the groves is the policy of the Forest Service defined in the Regional Forester's Direction of 1991, the Sequoia National Forest Mediated Settlement Agreement of 1990, and the Presidential Proclamation of 1992. Under existing policy, the Forest Service has withdrawn these groves from the land base considered for timber production and given perpetuation of the groves priority over all other manage- ment considerations. We are currently mapping those groves and will prepare management plans specific to each grove in full con- sultation with Congress, the scientific community, interest groups, and the public, to ensure that management proposals are scientif- ically sound and socially acceptable. There is complete agreement within the scientific community, the Forest Service, and the public that the groves must be preserved. The question is how. Two general approaches have been advanced. The first approach, represented by H.R. 2153, recommends withdrawing the groves into a very large preserve that excludes or limits prescribed treat- ment designed to perpetuate the groves, such as fuel reduction, seedbed preparation, and competing vegetation removal. 27 It should be noted that although the reserve encompasses more than 400,000 acres, only about 40,000 acres, or 10 percent, of the proposed reserve currently supports giant sequoias. The other approach suggests that some management is needed to perpetuate the groves. This approach retains flexibility to deal with problems of fuel buildup, dense understory vegetation, risk from drought, insects, and disease, and increased recreation use in the Sierra Nevada region that, together, present greater risks of human-caused wildfire. The approach recognizes that these are dy- namic ecosystems which will change and that preservation in the strict sense is not likely to maintain the sequoias. One of my key goals is to quickly and successfully implement ecosystem management in the national forests and grasslands. That management indicates that we take a broader view. We have already initiated two important scientific efforts that, when completed, will add to our knowledge of the ecosystems of the Sierras. They are the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project and the California spotted owl environmental impact statement. The infor- mation from those efforts is essential in developing successful man- agement strategies on an ecosystemwide basis. The Sierra Nevada ecosystem project is a comprehensive study by an independent panel of scientists, integrating state-of-the-art knowledge on biological, physical, and socioeconomic environment. It will be the basis for developing management strategies to main- tain ecosystem health while providing resources to meet human needs. The California spotted owl EIS process was initiated in March of 1993. Alternatives are being analyzed for managing California owl habitat on 10 forests in the Sierran province, including the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. That draft EIS should be available for public review and comment this summer. We believe it imperative that the findings from these two impor- tant efforts be considered before long-term strategies are imple- mented. At the Sequoia symposium held in 1992, attended by scientists, professional resource managers, and others concerned with protect- ing the groves, there was consensus among professionals and sci- entists that management is the best course if the groves are to be perpetuated. Some combination of silvicultural treatment, prescribed fire, and other measures can probably best ensure survival and long-term vi- ability of the giant sequoia. The risk to those groves from severe wildfire is a concern most often mentioned by scientists and professionals who favor active management. Though fire effects differ widely, periodic burning is an essential ecological process in fire-adapted ecosystems such as mixed conifer and giant sequoia forests found within the lands af- fected by H.R. 2153. Excluding or greatly reducing natural fire within the sequoia groves has two undesirable effects. The first has been an unnatu- rally high fuel accumulation. The natural fire regime of frequent, low-intensity fire removes fuels and understory vegetation with lit- tle risk to larger trees. The current, unnaturally high fuel accumu- lation can lead to intense wildfires that are extremely difficult to 28 control, with potentially disastrous consequences for the sequoias and unacceptable risks to people and property. The second undesirable effect is the relatively rapid change in forest structure and composition. Species such as white fir are able to grow in the shade of the sequoias, and, in addition to producing a ladder for fire to follow into the crown of the sequoias, greatly increases competition for water and soil nutrients on site. The stress from this competition can result in insect and disease epidemics. We know of no scientifically valid experimental studies or data on fire ecology that support the conclusion that setting aside the groves can preserve them over time in the face of current levels of fuel buildup and natural successional process. Two methods are available to reduce that fuel buildup: Pre- scribed burning and direct removal of understory vegetation by thinning. Using only prescribed fire as a fuel-reduction method has been used in the groves in the national parks and, although some- what effective, does entail more risk than a combination of the two methods. Understory thinning to reduce fuel loading and risks from insects and disease has also proven effective where carefully pre- pared and executed. In many of the sequoia st£inds, suppression of natural fire has re- sulted in invading 70- and 80-year-old white fir which now provide continuous fuel ladders from the ground to the crowns of the se- quoias. Because of this, prescribed burning often requires three or four applications to reduce fuels and invading trees without dam- age to the sequoias. The roads that currently exist within the groves are critical to maintaining essential fire-suppression access during these treatment periods. It is more efficient and cost effective to remove the trees by thinning, followed by low-intensity prescribed fire. Though there is debate about the proper combination of methods, there is growing consensus that flexibility to choose methods where they are appro- priate is essential to retaining those groves over time. The Forest Service recommends this flexible approach. We under- stand the concern and intent of H.R. 2153. However, we feel it is premature to set aside such large acreages before fully exploring the ecological conditions in the groves and the surrounding mixed conifer forest to determine the management that may be needed to ensure survival. We want to work with the committee to keep you fully informed of the progress of the Sierra ecosystem study and are committed to cooperating with you to ensure perpetuation of the giant sequoia. It should also be noted that H.R. 2153 would be subject to pay- as-you-go provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. I would also like to submit for the record copies of the report of the California spotted owl technical assessment team and the peer- reviewed manuscripts from the giant sequoia symposium. These documents provide the scientific basis for developing any manage- ment strategy for the Sierra Nevadas. [The material is held in the committee files.] Mr. J. Thomas. That concludes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to answer questions. 29 [The prepared statement of Mr. J. Thomas appears at the conclu- sion of the hearing.] Mr. Brown [assuming chair]. Are there questions from any mem- ber of the subcommittee? Mr. Volkmer. Mr. Volkmer. I really don't have a question. I just want to say welcome back, Jack. It has been a long time and, as far as I am concerned, good relationship, and I value highly, very highly, your opinion in regard to these matters, just as I did back when we were working with the Gang of Four in trying to work something out. So I, for one, am willing to say to you that I am willing to work with you now as Chief not only for the good of the Sierras, the se- quoias, and everything else but for the rest of our National Forest System. I firmly believe, as one who basically started us down this road of an ecosystem approach to management, that you are committed to that type of management position and that the days of past for- est management style are no longer. Is that correct? Mr. J. Thomas. Certainly we are evolving a totally new ap- proach, or not a totally new approach, but our approach is evolving. Those mistakes of the past, Congressman, we share with the Con- gress of the United States, who gave us some direction. Mr. Volkmer. I do not disagree with that. Mr. J. Thomas. Now, the next point of it is, those things are changing. In my mind, to look at the application of the National Forest Management Act and say that has been a failure is only partially true. The second thing is that it does not need to continue to do that. We have been through a very involved process once. I think we have learned a lot. The thing that I would most like to make the point about is there is a buzz word around that is the application of common sense, which is called "adaptive management." You learn from your mis- takes. Don't repeat the mistakes. Try the next thing that you think is correct and learn from that how to proceed. That is the way, in my opinion, that we should go at this. My general experience in nearly a. 40-year career is that prescrip- tive legislation is antithetical to being able to move forward under that common-sense approach. You get frozen in time, and once done, it is very difficult to adjust. Of course, I speak as a scientist and a land manager when I say we prefer flexibility to adjust to new conditions and to new information. Mr. Volkmer. I can well remember, during our discussions back when we were talking about these inked forests or whatever you want to call it, that one of the things that became apparent to me in listening to you and the others was that we really did not know as much about our national forests as we needed to know as far as the ecosystem approach, and that we needed additional re- search, et cetera, in order to have some of those answers. Was I correct in that? Mr. J. Thomas. You were certainly correct in that. However, we are beginning to build a rather considerable backlog of information, but the shift to ecosystem management, which has been projected for a long time, is only now occurring. But I think there is going to be a requirement. 80-635 0 -94 -2 30 \ Many times, when you hear about ecosystem management, peo- ple say, "Whatever that is." I am going to tell you what it is so there is no doubt. Ecosystem management is an overarching view at a much larger scale than we have taken in the past. The underlying premise in ecosystem management is the health of the system. The health of the system is defined as its ability to sustain itself over centuries, not over two timber rotations but over the centuries. Involved in that is the whole concept of biodiversity and all of those attributes. But in the end, every single action has to originate from the ground up, but under the overarching concept. It is not that aw- fully complex in theory; it is just a different scale and a different view of looking at things. Mr. VOLKMER. You undoubtedly do not have the vision that some others that are proponents of this legislation have, and that is that if we do not actually preserve the forest, these 400-and-some thou- sand acres, that we are going to lose the sequoia. Mr. J. Thomas. Let me repeat. Congressman. I see a lot of things in H.R. 2153 that we like. One is there is not any argument that we should preserve the giant sequoia. There is absolutely no de- bate. To me, the primary function in the debate is to freeze some- thing in time with legislative prescription. I think we would see very quickly, when we are dealing with those fire conditions inside of that 450,000 acres — ^you know, I am scared to death for my managers when you turn around and say, "Return this to natural conditions, whatever that is; then let natu- ral fire reign to the extent that it does not threaten people or prop- erty." Have you looked at a map of that area, how much private land inholdings, all those things? Our managers are going to be right on top of any fire that is in there, holding their breath that the wind does not come up and it gets away. This is not a primeval forest. These are not primeval times. They are very complex. I prefer that my managers have flexibility to deal with that con- dition, both in terms of fuel reduction, which we have to do before we could even think about low-intensity fire, and we need to also think what natural fire was like in that system: slow, creeping, burning, going on sometimes for months at a time. I think we really need to consider whether the people in that val- ley would consider that that much smoke in the air for that long a period of time is overwhelmingly conducive to their lifestyle. Mr. VoLKMER. I want to thank you for being here again today and thank you very much for your opinion. I believe that there is no question that I, too, feel that maybe the bill goes a little bit too far. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Volkmer. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomas, the sequoia mediated settlement agreement was signed by 19 signatories in 1990 to establish a process to identify, map, and protect the sequoia groves. In your opinion, does support of H.R. 2153 violate the intended purposes of the mediated settle- ment agreement? 31 Mr. J. Thomas. I am not sure I quite understand the question, but I think I do. Mr. Lewis. I can repeat it. Mr. J. Thomas. Please. Mr. Lewis. Was the sequoia mediated settlement agreement signed by 19 signatories in 1990 intended to establish a process to identify, map, and protect the sequoia groves? Mr. J. Thomas. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Does support of H.R. 2153 negate in any way the me- diated settlement agreement? Mr. J. Thomas. I think that it does in the sense that it imposes a settlement rather than whatever would emerge from that proc- ess. The settlement is imposed by the legislation. Mr. Lewis. All right. The Forest Service predicts watershed ef- fects on the Sequoia National Forest. Could you explain that, please? What are the watershed effects? Mr. J. Thomas. Of this bill? Mr. Lewis. No. You predict the watershed effects on the Sequoia National Forest. Can you explain to us how you predict watershed effects? Mr. J. Thomas. Well, we predict watershed effects with any course of management action that we undertake. I am not up to speed on precisely what techniques have been used on the Sequoia National Forest, nor am I a watershed expert. But we do that work. Mr. Lewis. So with the two questions that I have asked, you feel that H.R. 2153 would be arbitrary to the interests of the Forest Service at this point? Mr. J. Thomas. I don't know whether I would say that it was ar- bitrary to the interests of the Forest Service, but I certainly think it would impose a management regime that I do not consider has adequate flexibility to deal with the conditions that we face. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown. Mr. Dooley. Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomas, I just have a few questions to perhaps provide some clarification to the findings that are part of the legislation, and if we go to finding 4, they say most of the giant sequoia trees in the entire world are within the boundaries of the Sequoia National Forest and the Sierra National Forest. From my information, that figure is about 34 percent. Would you agree? Mr. J. Thomas. We have about half of them. Mr. Dooley. And so it is 50 percent. Then they also state that these trees and their environs are cur- rently unprotected statutorily from logging, development, and other impacts resulting from human activity. I would like, from your perspective, if you could contrast be- tween— is there any real practical difference between statutorial protection and the protection that the Forest Service is providing now to the sequoia redwoods? Mr. J. Thomas. Yes, I think there is, at least in theory. The two levels of protection are a Presidential proclamation, which stands until the President changes it, and even if he changed it, or she 32 changed it, we would have to change our view. Quite likely, though, if the President changed his mind, we probably would, too, I sup- pose. But I think that is highly unlikely but possible. Statutorily, of course, it would remain in effect until changed by the same proc- ess. Mr. DOOLEY. Also, on finding 6, they basically talk about the £in- cient forests, the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, as being homes to rare and threatened and endangered species. I am sure they are driving at the sequoia redwoods. They say that further destruction or diminution of the forests can only accelerate, basically, the extinction of the said species. The im- plication here is that the management plan that the Forest Service is operating now is actually contributing to the extinction of the se- quoia redwood trees. Do you agree with that? Mr. J. Thomas. I don't think that is what it said. Congressman. I think it said that — I don't know if they were aiming at the se- quoias themselves or the complex of plants and animals that would be associated with the late successional condition represented there. While not being familiar with that exact situation, I have a lot of experience with some very similar things, and I suspect there are complexes of plants and animals that are associated with that successional state. Let me find out something. [Pause.] Mr. J. Thomas. What I wanted to check — and I was correct — the spotted owl conservation strategy that is being considered is a full ecosystem strategy. It involves all of the complex of plants and ani- mals. So we are well on our way to dealing with that question. Mr. DooLEY. Further, on finding 9, they basically refer to the ecosystem of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Then they say such ecosystems are not renewable for many centuries after logging, if at all. In your testimony, you talkec^ about the natural state of succession. Is there really a contrast between preservation of a natural ecosystem, a differentiation between after logging and without it? And what is the real difference? Mr. J. Thomas. I think the language in that statement is confus- ing to me as an ecologist. An ecosystem includes all successional states, from bare ground after fire or disturbance, to the more ma- ture forest stands. I really think that statement is aimed at those late successional stands, because the ecosystem itself includes the whole complex. That is a subset of the ecosystem. If it is described that way, then it has a whole different meaning. The statement is like you have to have 450,000 acres of late succes- sional giant sequoias, which, indeed, would be many centuries away. But I think the point to be made is that when you are dealing with that late successional forest, it can be replaced only after very long periods of time and probably could never, if starting from bare ground, could probably never be replaced, because it evolved in a way over time under circumstances, almost of geological time, of weather and soil development that would probably never be rep- licated. 33 Mr. DOOLEY. And, rather, if it was logged or selectively logged or burned, you would never see it regenerate to the same state that it is currently? Mr. J. Thomas. That is quite likely, yes. Mr. DoOLEY. In finding 10, it says the policy of the U.S. Forest Service has been to encourage logging of ancient forest habitats, in- cluding that of the giant sequoias. Now, is that accurate to say that the policy currently is to encourage logging, and it says including of the giant sequoias as U.S. Forest Service policy? Mr. J. Thomas. Well, it would be better if we understood the full history of these forests. Most of the logging of the giant sequoias, I think, took place back around the turn of the century. We did log some until recently. That is probably where a number of the boards that built the houses in California came from. I think what has evolved over time, there was a time within my career in which there was a fairly clear consensus that we should rapidly convert decadent old-growth forests, in quotations, to younger, more vigorous forests. Following all the rules of scarcity, suddenly there was science that was developing and everything else, but when those cathedral forests began to become rare, then the controversy began to step up, £uid we suddenly said, "Wait a minute. Maybe what we have done up to this point is logical." But at some point new information comes to bear, new public de- sires come to bear, new ways of viewing things come to bear, and that has happened, and that is why we are changing things very rapidly. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, we have already reduced suddenly, in almost a flash of historical time, gone from over 4 bil- lion board feet a year to 1 billion; significantly in northern Califor- nia as well; elsewhere in the United States. These things enter a process of evolutionary change, understanding and pattern and public desire. But there was a considerable consensus until 10 or 15 years ago that that is what we should do. That consensus is changing. Mr. DoOLEY. So the accurate statement would be, the policy is no longer for the U.S. Forest Service to encourage the logging of ancient forests or the sequoia redwoods, certainly. Mr. J. Thomas. I would not go that far. I think we have all of our giant sequoia protected. All the groves of sequoias are pro- tected. As a general statement for the U.S. Forest Service, however, say in the President's option 9 plan for the northern spotted owl region, still a considerable amount of old growth remains in the cutting base. Mr. DoOLEY. Sure. If I could just have the liberty of a couple of others here, it says also in item 11 that at the current rate of log- ging in the Sequoia National Forest, it is estimated that all the ecologically significant unprotected forest will be destroyed within 7 to 8 years. Is that a statement that the Forest Service would agree with? Mr. J. Thomas. I don't think — we would not only not agree with it; we would rather emphatically disagree with it. Mr. DooLEY. And they also have a finding 12. It says that re- moval of timber from the Sequoia National Forest is done at a net 34 loss to the U.S. Treasury of from $6 million to more than $8 million annually over and above the amounts appropriated annually by the Congress for the administration and the operation of that forest. Do these figures in any way represent what the Forest Service figures are in terms of income? Mr. J. Thomas. No. Mr. DOOLEY. And what has been, over the past 5 years, what has been the record? Mr. J. Thomas. In total, out of that 5-year period, we were slightly deficit in 1990 and 1991. Figures indicate for the 5-year pe- riod a profit or above cost of $5.1 million. Mr. DoOLEY. All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your statements. Mr. J. Thomas. I would like to follow up. There have been a number of figures thrown around today about money, and many of those numbers are the entire Forest Service budget for that forest, not the amount of money that goes into the timber program. So when we deal with numbers, we need to be very careful about what numbers go into consideration of what is below cost or above cost. Mr. DoOLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown. Thank you. Mr. Pombo. Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I am very concerned about how the holders to the private prop- erty owners in this area would be treated. Apparently, you have seen a map of this area and are very aware of the private property owners that are there. Under the controlled burning status that would be put in place by this bill, do you feel that that would be adequate protection for the private property owners in the area? Mr. J. Thomas. I am not clear as to what the bill does with — what the interpretation of that is. We know there are about 25,000 acres of private inholdings. We would be charged with protection of property and human life. No, I have no idea of what that means. It is not very clear in the legislation. Mr. Pombo. It is my understanding that there is a very short pe- riod of time in order to conduct these controlled bums in this re- gion under this scenario of not being able to use mechanical equip- ment. My understanding from the bill is that you would be able to use draft animals as a means of removing the underbrush in forests from there. Would that be an economically feasible way, or would it be physically possible to carry out your duties under that sce- nario? Mr. J. Thomas. It would require a lot of horses. [Laughter.] I did not mean for that to be — well, I did mean for it to be funny. [Laughter.] There is a place for horse logging, and I have some affection for it. However, this is the reason — I almost sometimes think you ought to have to do an environmental impact statement on legisla- tion as well as our having to do them when we have to carry it out in the field. Mr. Pombo. I would agree. 35 Mr. J. Thomas. But in looking at that, there is very modem equipment. They are, in that statement, probably concerned about soil compaction. We have some equipment — or we do not, but equipment exists now that can do this sort of work with minimal disturbance and very low pressure, very low risk of compaction, which would probably be considerably more efficient. But again, that is another prescriptive statement. Wait a minute, tell us what the intent is. If you intend to pass legislation, tell us the intent. Tell us the desired future condition. Let us figure out how to get there most effectively and efficiently, which will change over time. Five years ago, we did not have that kind of equipment. We have some now that, I suspect, puts less pounds per square foot on the ground from the wheels than from a horse's hoof. Mr. POMBO. I have one other question that maybe you can clar- ify. In a previous statement, it was said that in a 1989 Audubon Society study, there were only 41,000 acres of thickly wooded, old- growth forest left in the United States and that there are even fewer acres now, and only 10 percent of them are protected in wil- derness areas. Would you care to comment on that? Mr. J. Thomas. Somebody, I think, made a mistake in transcrib- ing numbers. Those people do some pretty good studies, but there are millions of acres of old growth, not 40,000. Something is wrong with the statement. I don't know what it is. Mr. POMBO. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the report here; I just have a copy of the statement that was made, and if you would care to clear that up for the record Mr. J. Thomas. I would just say I do not think that statement is accurate, but I have dealt with those folks, and I think somebody made a transcription error or something, but that is grotesquely wrong. We are talking about old-growth forests in general. Mr. POMBO. All right. Thank you. Mr. Brown. Mr. Thomas, I think I do not need to tell you that I have the highest respect and regard for your capabilities, your vast knowledge of this subject, and of your desire to faithfully carry out the best possible management practices even when you are con- fused by some of the legislation that we adopt here. I think you will, nevertheless, do your best to overcome that. In response to a direct question from Mr. Lewis, you indicated that the bill would negate the provisions of the negotiated settle- ment that was entered into in 1989 and 1990. Is that what you meant to say? Mr. J. Thomas. I said it would replace it. Mr. Brown. You said what? Mr. J. Thomas. I said, once you have legislation, you must com- ply with the legislation, regardless of what went before. Mr. Brown. The legislation, on page 16, beginning with line 19, says that you will implement the regeneration plan required by the stipulation for entry of judgment, basically the negotiated agree- ment. To the degree that you indicated that this bill would either ne- gate it or would replace it, that would seem to be contradicted by this statement. Mr. J. Thomas. I would say that that particular part of it is, but there are other aspects of it in terms of burning and trails. The 36 agreement also includes grazing and timber extraction that is cer- tainly different in the bill than in that negotiated agreement. Mr, Brown. The provisions of the bill with regard to most of those items that you have mentioned, which would come within the purview of the scientific management of the forest, require the de- velopment of a plan upon recommendation of the scientific advisory committee. There is no prescription in the bill whatsoever. Mr. J. Thomas. There is a prescription in the bill, for example — I do not want to debate you about your own bill, but it eliminates grazing in 10 years. Mr. Brown. I am sorry; I cannot hear you while the buzzers are ringing. All right. Mr. J. Thomas. I said I do not want to debate you on the provi- sions of your own bill, which you obviously know better than I, but for example, it eliminates grazing in 10 years, a flat-out statement. Mr. Brown. And that is not a subject of the negotiated agree- ment, is it? Mr. J. Thomas. Grazing was to continue, yes. Mr. Brown. I am not familiar with what the negotiated agree- ment does. All I am reading is the language of the bill, which re- quires you to carry out the stipulations of the agreement with re- gard to the regeneration of the forest. Now, there may be some other things in here, but I am not Mr. J. Thomas. All right. We are in violent agreement. In that one instance, we were ordered to carry out the negotiated agree- ment. There are other aspects to the negotiated agreement Mr. Brown. Well, isn't that the primary purpose of the agree- ment, to provide for the protection and regeneration of the forest? Mr. J. Thomas. The MSA covered all aspects of forest manage- ment, not just that one. But I am trying to say with you, yes, I agree that there is no conflict on that one provision. But the nego- tiated agreement covered considerably more things that are changed, Mr. Brown. Well, obviously, I am somewhat partial to the bill and want to defend it against what I think might be erroneous statements on the part of any of the people who oppose it, and I was disturbed by your response indicating that the bill negates the settlement, I think you said that in general, and that is not my un- derstanding of the bill. Certainly it is not the intent of the bill, even with regard to grazing, where it provides for a 10-year con- tinuation of the existing grazing. As far as I am concerned, if it is found by you or the scientific board that that in no way contributes to the degradation or opti- mum use of the forest, I would be willing to continue it indefinitely. But we can work that out as we proceed with the bill. Mr, J, Thomas, Congressman, let me try to clarify. What I meant to say was, when you have legislation, legislation replaces what- ever is there. It becomes statutory, and we will react to it that way, Mr, Brown, Mr, Thomas, it clearly states that it requires only to implement the agreement that you are talking about, I do not quite understand what you are getting at when you say that it re- places it, Mr. J. Thomas. All right, let me try one more time, please. The example you give is exactly correct. There are a number of other 37 things that the bill does change. That is the only thing I am say- ing, and once you have it in legislation, that is the action that we will follow. Mr. Brown. I do not perceive any critical areas in which this bill mandates anything. It does mandate a process, however. Basically, it is a process mandated under present law, which has not been fol- lowed. But what it does mandate is that you develop a plan cover- ing the various matters that are described in the bill on the advice of a scientific advisory committee, and with public input. Now, is that strange and foreign to your philosophy? Mr. J. Thomas. No, sir; it is not. Mr. Brown. All right. I tend to get emotional sometimes about the fact that the administration repeatedly comes in — and I am talking any administration — and says, "Congress, don't bother me. We understand what we're doing better than you do, and we don't want you to give us any directions." And I sense a tendency on your part to reflect that kind of attitude sometimes. Mr. J. Thomas. Congressman, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. If you pass legislation, as long as I am in charge of the For- est Service, I will carry that out to the letter. That is not my inten- tion. I just think my experience of 40 years indicates that prescrip- tive legislation in natural resources management usually does not give a good result. Mr. Brown. I tend to agree with you, and if you will observe, most of the legislation I have been involved in does not try to pre- scribe anything except the process by which you get the best pos- sible input and act on it in an appropriate fashion. It does not pre- scribe the results. Chief, let me ask you a question having to do with the economics of the situation there. I have information which I understand comes from the Forest Service's 1988 environmental impact state- ment that you spend twice as much annually on timber manage- ment in this area covered by the bill as you spend on recreation, despite the fact that recreation produces almost 10 times the eco- nomic benefit to the area. Could you explain to me why your resource allocation is so dis- proportionate to the economic benefits of the two different uses? Mr. J. Thomas. I am not familiar with that. That was before I started thinking about this sort of thing. But I will explain in gen- eral how that works. Basically, the Forest Service puts together a budget, submits it to the USDA. The USDA alters it, submits it to 0MB. 0MB alters it and it becomes the President's budget, and then it is submitted to Congress, and usually in that process, the things that we have asked for in recreation have been reduced while we receive full funding or close to full funding for our timber management activi- ties. Mr. Brown. Well, there are reasons why that has happened in the past, and I am sure you are aware of some of those reasons. The environmental impact statement also — I think I indicated this, that you spend $169 million annually on timber management, while the gross revenue from timber sales is $162 million, which is a net loss of $7 million a year. That is approximately the same 38 figure that 0MB comes to. And yet you have repeated emphatically that there is no below-cost timber sales here. Mr. J. Thomas. What year are you talking about, Congressman? Mr. Brown. Well, it is not clear what year. It is just from the 1988 environmental impact statement prepared by the Forest Serv- ice. It probably therefore refers to years before 1988, and your fig- ures conceivably could be more recent. Mr. J. Thomas. Yes, sir. I think that is the difference. Mr. Brown. All right. We will clarify those things as we proceed, and I am not trying to heckle you about that. Mr. J. Thomas. No, that is fine. The numbers I gave you began in — well, there is something wrong with the numbers. I believe you have cited $169 million. The entire forest budget for that entire for- est is $20 million. So we have some confusion about figures we need to work on, but the numbers I gave you started in 1989 through 1993, over the 5-year period, it was a plus of $5.1 million. Mr. Brown. One last question, Mr. Thomas. Your report in 1992 on planting accomplishment indicated that you had, between 1982 and 1991, planted over 15,000 acres of the sequoia forest with seed- lings, and yet less than 25 percent of the area was certified by the Forest Service as successfully reforested. I have visited some of those sites and observed the situation myself. What do you attribute this high rate of reforestation failure to, or do you consider that to be a high rate of failure? Mr. J. Thomas. I don't know enough about the circumstsinces of that particular regeneration problem to answer your question. I can get you answers, but I do not know them. Mr. Brown. We may submit questions in writing. Mr. Dooley. Mr. Dooley. I just have a follow-up on the clarification on the prescriptions that are in part of this bill that would in fact abro- gate portions of the mediated settlement agreement. The mediated settlement agreement also included a timber harvest quantity of — I cannot remember the exact numbers — was it 75 million board feet? Mr. J. Thomas. Eighty million board feet. Mr. Dooley. And then the provision of the bill on page 18, line 22, where it says, "Timber cutting shall not be permitted on Fed- eral lands within the preserve," would clearly seem to be a direct abrogation of that mediated settlement agreement. Correct? Mr. J. Thomas. Certainly zero and 80 are very different, yes. Mr. Dooley. And that is the concern of a lot of us that are in opposition to this. We feel that we had a process with the mediated settlement agreement that did try to reach some mutually agreed- upon management principles, and this bill goes far beyond that. Mr. Brown. All right, if there are no further questions. Dr. Thomas, we will excuse you at this time with appreciation for your being here. Mr. J. Thomas. Thank you, sir. Mr. Brown. You said this was your first appearance. Mr. J. Thomas. As Chief. I have made a lot of appearances in front of Congress. Mr. Brown. As Chief. We certainly hope it does not discourage you from further appearances. [Laughter.] 39 Mr. J. Thomas. It takes a lot to discourage me. Mr. Brown. All right. We will call our next panel, which is Ms. Carla Cloer of Porterville; Mr. Michael McCloskey of the Sierra Club; Mr. Kirk Boyd of the law firm of Boyd, Huffman & Williams, San Francisco; Mr. Robert Wolf, forester, accompanied by Mr. Martin Litton of the Sequoia Alliance. Would all of you come forward at this time. Lacking any better guidelines, I will ask the panel members to proceed in the order in which I called their names. Ms. Cloer, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF CARLA CLOER, RESmENT, PORTERVILLE, CA Ms. Cloer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us to testify on behalf of my very favorite subject, which is the giant sequoia groves. I think there are more native Califomians in this room than there are in California, and I am one of them. I am a fourth-gen- eration native of California. My great-grandfather homesteaded in the Porterville area in 1880. I live in Porterville with my daughter. I am a schoolteacher there. I teach fifth grade. Porterville is not only the home of Sequoia National Forest head- quarters, but it is about an hour's drive from where your preserve would be. I also own property that would be surrounded by this preserve. My neighbors and my family and all of us support the passage of this bill. I would like you to know that I am the official Sierra Club con- tact person and representative for the mediated settlement agree- ment, and I am not violating the settlement agreement by being here and supporting this bill. Also, I would like you to know that Porterville is not a logging town. It has a much wider economic base, and the mill is not its sole means of survival. I have spent every summer of my life in Sequoia National Forest. I thought it would be there forever when I was a kid. Now, as an adult, I know that it will not, and I have spent the last 10 years of my life doing everything possible that is legal to try to protect this forest. I would like to show you my story. The purpose of what I am going to show you is to, hopefully, convince you that there is a much higher future for Sequoia National Forest and for the giant sequoia ecosystem than was envisioned in the past. So now if we can turn the lights down, I would like to show you my slides of Sequoia National Forest. These are the trees we are talking about, the giant sequoia of the Sierra Nevada. Visitors worldwide come to see these trees. They can live up to 3,000 years old. Some of the trees were in their own place, of course, still growing when Christ was bom. The groves themselves are hundreds of thousands of years old. This is a map of California. The Sierra Nevada runs from, be- tween the two arrows, from Mount Lassen in the north and Tehachapi in the south. You can see it is a narrow peninsula of a mountain range, with its high 14,000-foot peaks. 40 I want you to notice, though, here that to the east there is the Great Basin Desert, and to the south we have the Mojave Desert. So it is £in island of hfe surrounded by desert. The agency which controls this southern end of the Sierra Ne- vada is the Sequoia National Forest. This is also Sequoia National Forest, so not ^1 of this national forest is forested. With harsh conditions, low rainfall, shallow soils, steep slopes, short winters, it is a miracle that conifers can grow here at all. But the great towering peaks of the Sierra wring out the moisture brought in from the Pacific. Forest establishment depends on luck. Occasional cycles of good growing conditions break the usual pattern of dryness so trees can take hold. However, these cycles of better conditions are precarious and unpredictable. Nature dictates that this is not a good place to try to establish a tree farm. Now, at the edge of its range, the Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests are presided over by the monarch of the Sierra, the giant sequoia. This is my favorite summer place. Camp Nelson. The mountains in the background would be in the preserve. In the background here we have a hill called Jordan Peak, and as a kid, I used to ride my horse behind this mountain and go to the top of it, going through old-growth fir forests, and it was my very favorite place in the world. Now, as an adult, I knew there was a lot of logging that had gone on back there. I had seen it on the ground and on maps, but I real- ly was not prepared for what I would see when I first flew over this forest. The next slide will show you what is on the other side of Jordan Peak. Jordan Peak is in the middle, and all of those cleared areas in the front are clearcuts. In the distance you can see my hometown of Porterville. My favorite meadow was surrounded by clearcuts. You can see the meadow down here in the bottom. Today, Sequoia National Forest contains over 1,650 clearcut patches like you see here, accented by the snow. The clearcuts in this photo have all occurred in the past 10 years. This logging is forestwide; for example, here on the Great West- em Divide and here on the Sequoia National Park boundary. You will hear about other issues from our experts: watershed d£images, loss of soil, a hillside that is unraveling below a clearcut. In spite of this overlogging, you may be told today that logging this forest is a viable option. But adding insult to injury. Sequoia National Forest is having a real problem in growing back its logged areas. Here we have a unit in the Evans sale. It was planted in 1966 and again in 1970. Today it is primarily a brush field. This is the Castle Rock sale, logged in 1973. Sequoia National Forest claims that, overall, it has a 93 percent success rate in its reforestation. That figure is based upon a reforestation report writ- ten in 1991. The next slide is going to be of one of the units that is specifi- cally described in that report. There is a unit which was logged in 1964. That means that it is a 30-year-old plantation. The report 41 says that it is reforested with 490 trees per acre. Now, what would a 30-year-old plantation with 490 trees per acre look like? Is this what you would envision? This is unit 1,001 of the Solo Peak timber sale. It was first plant- ed in 1965. It has been replanted many times at taxpayer expense. And here we are out in the dust looking for the trees. Obviously, the Sequoia National Forest was using a different definition of suc- cessful reforestation than we ordinary people. Now, several registered foresters have reviewed the Sequoia Na- tional Forest's report, and these critiques elaborate on violations of Forest Service guidelines and scientific methods. These critiques will be submitted for the record. [The critiques are held in the committee files.] Ms. Cloer. My point there is that the Sequoia National Forest was willing to go to great lengths to support an overinflated log- ging volume and to ignore evidence which might slow the logging. Now, how does all this relate to giant sequoias? Well, we knew that destroying the forests around giant sequoia groves would eventually harm the groves because giant sequoias are a part of the larger forest ecosystem. However, we thought that the giant se- quoia situation was not urgent because giant sequoia groves were protected by Forest Service policy, weren't they? Logging in giant sequoia groves had been stopped at the turn of the century, and hundreds of signs were posted around the major- ity of groves saying, "Type 1 Grove," which, according to region 5 policy meant, "No major activities such as campground or road con- struction or timber cutting will be permitted within a type 1 grove." Just to be sure, we wrote the regional forester, and he wrote back: "We have not changed our long-standing regional direction — that is policy — for the management of the Sierra redwood groves." Now, you can perhaps understand our outrage when, in 1986, we stumbled into this next scene in the Long Meadow giant sequoia grove. The tree in the center is more than 18 feet in diameter. What happened to the type 1 protection, official Forest Service pol- icy? Well, the official answer involved a lot of rhetoric, something like, well, they really had not ever officially designated the groves as type 1, and now they have a new policy, and this new policy does have a preservation category, but no groves were in that cat- egory yet. This is Red Chief, the 31st largest tree in the world. I am not sure if you can see it, but there is a person standing right to the right of that tree. And here we are in the Peyrone grove. Now, this is a logging mentality gone wild. How did the Forest Service describe this type of logging? They called it nonintensive logging. And here, in the Converse Basin, they logged the sequoias, too. This was in 1984. Now, in the Converse Basin, the loggers had cut £dl the giants in the late 1800's, and this tree came up from seeds from the original giants. But Sequoia Forest categorized these trees as second growth, and they logged them, too. 42 We finally got a ninth circuit court injunction which was funded entirely by private people's donations. But during that time, over 1,000 acres in the hearts of over 10 groves were logged. Now, the Sequoia National Forest defends itself by saying it had to log out the nonsequoias so that the giants could reproduce. If that is the case, why did they plant pine in those groves at 8-by- 8-foot spacing? What about the numerous 60- to 80-year-old youngsters that were, by "accident," cut down after our lawsuit stopped the logging? The groves were reproducing. My point in all of this is to say, and try to convince you, that Forest Service policy is whimsical. It can change with every politi- cal breeze. Another point is that any incentive for commodity production will corrupt the very best of policies. And what is giant sequoia forest policy today? The only official policy that has gone through the NEPA process is the 1988 forest plan. It allocates 70 percent of all giant sequoia acreage to nonintensive management, the pictures of the logging that I have shown you. Now, of course, we appealed this plan. The settlement of that ap- peal, which is called the mediated settlement agreement, modified Sequoia's policy, so that with the exception of Converse Basin, the groves are taken out of the timber base. This settlement was a temporary fix. It was supposed to have been replaced by an amend- ed forest plan by 1992, but that has not happened. The maximum life of the settlement would be about 10 years, at which time Mr. Rose [resuming chair]. Let me interrupt you. Who agreed in this mediated settlement to do an amended forest plsin? Ms. Cloer. The Forest Service. Mr. Rose. All right. Now, if we get the Forest Service to do an amended plan, would it be proper for them to come with that as a proposal, or would they just do it? Or should it be negotiated? Ms. Cloer, Well, sir, I think there are several factors that have happened now. The mediated settlement agreement was supposed to have had its provisions incorporated into a forest plan which would go through public review. But because the funding was not there and the scientific studies were not there to guide this amend- ed forest plan, then time has marched on, and it is now obsolete. In my opinion, the mediated settlement agreement cannot be im- plemented. First of all, we have new scientific information about the California spotted owl. That means that when the mediated settlement agreement allows 2,000 acres of clearcutting in the Se- quoia National Forest, they can no longer do that. The mediated settlement agreement allows up to, not a mandated figure but al- lows up to 75 million board feet of green timber a year. Now the Sequoia National Forest's own projections say that they cannot take more than 28 or 30 million board feet a year. So there have been so many changes in scientific information since that mediated settlement agreement was first struck that it really would be impossible to incorporate it fully, I think you need to understand that the settlement agreement was a temporary fix. We wanted not to have to go to court on our land management plan appeal, and we negotiated without scientific 43 basis many of the provisions there, with an understanding that the scientific basis would be coming in and we would be then readjust- ing what the settlement agreement agreed to. It was never supposed to be a permanent fix for the forest for all time; it was a time-out, let's manage the forest in this certain way and wait for the scientific information to come in so we can adjust again. [Ms. Cloer submitted the following:] 44 SIERRA CLUp^ti^^;;^|JEIlN.KAWEAH CHAPTER Printed on 100% RecycM Pipar P.O. Box 307 Tehachapi CA 93561 March 1,1994 Sandra Key, Supervisor Sequoia National Forest 900 West Grand Avenue Porterville CA 93257 Dear Sandra: At our last meeting to discuss the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA), you expressed the opinion that the Giant Sequoia legislation supported by the Sierra Club is contrary to the spirit of the MSA. As you know, I do not agree with this opinion. The Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club has asked me to write this letter to clarify our position on this issue and on other MSA related matters. I am a past president of the National Sierra Club; I served during the time Mineral King was placed in Sequoia National Park. I am currently a member of the National Sierra Club Board. I was one of the official Sierra Club representatives which hammered out the provisions of the MSA. Just prior to the finalizing the MSA I recall that the mediation parties discussed specifically whether or not the MSA would limit the rights on any party to seek legislative changes. We agreed that the MSA did not limit such activities. We have been seeking legislative changes in Forest Service management, and the timber industry has pursued its lobbying to maximize the timber cut. Neither of these activities is precluded by the MSA. When the MSA was signed three years ago it was the expectation of all parties that it would take about two years to fully implement the MSA and to incorporate it into the Land Management Plan(LMP)of the Forest. The mediation was a process of give and take. We agreed to withdraw appeals and legal challenges to several timber sales even though we believed them to be out of compliance with various laws and regulations. In turn, the Forest Service agreed, among other things, to conduct several studies to obtain the science needed to justify a permanent ASQ for the Forest. This science had been lacking in the original LMP. The 75 MMBF annual cut agreed to in the MSA was not based on science. It was based on a number arrived at by bargaining across the table. Once the MSA required studies were done we expected that the ASQ would be revisited in view of the new information. This was information we felt the Forest Service should have already had obtained in the past in order to conduct timber operations on the Forest. Based on our observations, we believed that the studies would reveal that Sequoia National Forest had been cutting far too much timber over the past several years and that the 75 MMBF was far too high. The new \ 45 Fontaine page 2 information in the CASPO Report has validated our suspicions. The MSA required a Reforestation Report to be written. You have received letters from the California Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, and recently from the Wilderness Society documenting our serious concerns with this report. You have been distributing this report to Congressmen and to the media as proof that all is well on Sequoia Forest. The professional registered foresters who have reviewed your report conclude that you did not follow Regional Guidelines and that it is scientifically invalid and must be redone. Other studies that must be done according to the provisions of the MSA are dependent upon a valid Reforestation Report. For example, a review of the yield tables must await completion of a valid Reforestation Report. In addition a Cumulative Watershed Effects report must be done and receive peer review. We are very concerned that the studies called for in the MSA that would effect timber harvest volumes are not getting done or are not being done adequately. If it were not for the new information in the CASPO Report and the new interim CASPO Guidelines, timber harvest on the Forest would be business as usual and the environmentalists who signed the MSA in good faith would have so far gained virtually nothing from the MSA. In the meantime, what protection are the Giant Sequoias receiving? The Groves as defined by the MSA are being mapped accurately and receive a 500 foot buffer from timber harvest. However, no one can claim to know what kind of long term permanent protection they need. The requirement for a 500 foot buffer around the outermost Sequoias in the Groves was bargained across the table and was not based upon any knowledge whatsoever about the current requirements of the Groves, let alone any knowledge about their long term requirements. This type of Grove delineation and management is not ecosystem management. We must identify and protect all of the factors which sustain the Groves. For example, we learned at the Giant Sequoia Symposium last year in Visalia that the Groves have not always been in their present location. Their response to climatic change is not known. Scientists tell us we may be in for a period of global warming. How can we justify the massive manipulation of timber harvesting the surrounding forests without knowing the long term effects upon the Giant Sequoias? The provisions of the MSA were never intended to be permanent. At most they were to have been in effect for the approximate ten year life of the Forest Plan. We have heard the Forest Service claim that President Bush's proclamation of 1992 protects the Groves. This Proclamation merely perpetuated Grove protection in the same manner as did the MSA; both suffer from the same problem of lack of information and scientific basis. The legislation we are supporting would give the Giant Sequoias permanent protection in so far as we are capable of doing. It would set up a permanent Preserve to protect the Giant Sequoias and their surrounding forests. Commercial timber 46 Fontaine page 3 harvest and roadbuilding would be prohibited. A panel of scientists would be established to develop a management plan for the Preserve, in that way what is presently known about the requirements of the Groves could be used and further research to reveal their survival needs could identified and carried out. The known effects of logging, certainly not beneficial since the Groves as we know them today were established in the absence of logging, would not continue. Recovery from the effects of the cutting that has already been done in the Groves and their associated forest would be allowed to begin. A plan for restoration of the forest to a natural condition, the condition that brought the Groves to us in the first place, would be developed and implemented. The Giant Sequoias are a world class resource. They are the largest living things on the earth. They are remnants of forests that once covered large portions of the Earth's surface in the distant geologic past. We have no right to tinker with them without knowing what we are doing. They belong to our descendants just as much as they belong to us. Just for once why can't the Forest Service get out ahead of us on this? In my thirty plus years of involvement in environmental issues on Sequoia National Forest, every advance we have made has been over vehement opposition from the Forest Service. The Golden Trout Wilderness was established by Congress in 1978. The Forest Service wanted a Wilderness of less than half of the 300,000 acres in the final legislation. The same year Mineral King was added to Sequoia National Park to make sure that there would never be a huge destination resort and ski area there as advocated by the Forest Service. Again we had to go to the Courts and Congress to overrule plans by the Forest Service. Large parts of Sequoia National Forest were added to the Wilderness System in 1983 in spite of Forest Service opposition. The Courts told the Forest Service they had acted illegally when logging began in the Giant Sequoia Groves in the 1980's. Currently there are injunctions on proceeding with some of your proposed timber sales. Still other sales are under administrative appeal by various organizations including the Sierra Club. Most of this strife has been over logging. After listening to our complaints about roadbuilding and logging over the years, the result has nearly always been the Forest Service continuing business as usual. We have been forced to go to court or to Congress. Yet in spite of Forest Service opposition we have accomplished most of our environmental goals for the Forest. We are not writing this letter to berate Forest Service personnel or to take an arrogant, ■^e know better than you" posture. It is rather a plea to see if we can't , for once, work together for a common goal. I believe there is an institutional problem in the Forest Service that leads to a reluctance to seriously consider what the general public has to say. Highly trained professionals have a hard time listening to ideas contrary to what they learned in their training which was heavily biased towards commodity extraction. If you really believe the proposed legislation is not the best way to manage the Forest 47 Fontaine page 4 and protect the Giant Sequoias, why not come up with your own plan? It is no disgrace to admit there is not enough known about the Sequoias and their surrounding forests at this time to fully protect them. If we do not really know what a long term sustainable ASQ is for the Forest, then why not admit that and drastically reduce the ASQ until we do know? Why don't you stop planning sales that lie in the same watersheds as Giant Sequoia Groves? Why wait until the Courts or Congress tell you what to do, as has happened so often in the past? I keep heanng reports that the Forest Service is telling Congress that the MSA has . taken care of all the problems in the Forest and that only a few radicals are supporting a Giant Sequoia Preserve established by Congress. That is not true. The Sierra Club, along with nearly all of the National environmental organizations support a Giant Sequoia Preserve established by Congress. There is new information available since the MSA was signed. For example the CASPO Report has shown that the ASQ for the Sierran Forests must be drastically reduced if the California Spotted Owl and other old growth dependent species are to survive. Already some of the provisions in the MSA are obsolete because of this new information. For example, the MSA allows for even-aged management; the new information in CASPO makes that provision unacceptable. As time drags on and actions called for in the MSA are delayed, more and more of the MSA will become obsolete. If the studies called for in the MSA are not done soon then most of our reasons for signing the MSA will have been lost. We hope the Forest Service can be pro-active and support protection and nurturing of the magnificent Sequoia ecosystem. With all of the recent developments, the Forest Sen/ice has an opportunity now to come up with a better way to protect the Forest. Just saying the MSA has taken care of all the problems and defending the old ways of doing things is not going to convince many people. Without a change in approach, the battle to save the Giant Sequoia ecosystem wiil be just one more prolonged campaign with the environmental community on one side and the Forest Service and commodity interests on the other. Why does history have to keep repeating itself? We hope that we have clarified our position on several issues. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to fully protea Giani Sequoias. Sincerely. Uoe Fontaine 48 Mr, Rose. So you see the solution as nothing short of the Brown bill? Ms. Cloer. You are absolutely right. Mr. Rose. All right. Ms. Cloer. I agree with you, also, that there are Mr. Rose. I am not saying I agree with that. I am asking you the question. Ms. Cloer. All right. I am sorry. Mr. Rose. You see nothing short of the Brown bill as the solu- tion? Ms. Cloer. I agree with Representative Brown. The process of getting this bill together and getting it worded correctly is a dy- namic one, and there is room for various changes. We can work with the acreages; we can work with grazing. There are lots of things that we can do to make this bill better. But I fully agree we need this legislation. Mr. Rose. All right. Could you please conclude, because some of you are likely to go home at 10 o'clock. The way we are going, we will be here until 10. Ms. Cloer. I have four more slides. Mr. Rose. Go ahead now. Ms. Cloer. All right. I was just going to say basically what you asked me. The settle- ment was a temporary fix, and it was supposed to have been re- placed by an amended forest plan. I would just like to say that I was at the table when Forest Serv- ice policy was hammered out in this mediated settlement agree- nient, and it is not based on science; it was a negotiated grove defi- nition which involves measuring so many feet outside of a grove boundary and putting a marker in the ground. It was strictly judged by what it would do with the timber cut; it was not based on any scientific information. Mr. Rose. I need to see you after the hearing. Do you have to leave right away? Ms. Cloer. No, sir. I will be very happy to talk with you. Mr. Rose. All right. I want to talk to you about that. Ms. Cloer. All right. Today the Forest Service and the Chief of the Forest Service have told us the value of ecosystem management. Sequoia National Forest pledges to preserve and protect giant sequoia groves. I think that this bill will help them do just that. We need to define the groves as a connected ecosystem and pro- tect a generous area. We need to relieve them of the pressure to produce timber so they can do their job and their training and apply it correctly. H.R. 2153 will allow any science-based activity to occur for the long-term good of the grove, including fire and thinning. Our forest still remains a beautiful forest. It belongs to the world, and it is as great as any park or any forest that you find internationally. This is my last slide. It is a picture of my favorite giant sequoia, the "Wishbone Tree." I first met this when I was about 5, and as sequoias grow, it is not terribly large, but I can ride my horse 49 through it there. There is a trail that goes through the bottom of this tree. The tradition is that, as you pass through, you reach out your hand and you make a wish. This past weekend, instead of my usual wish as a teenager, which was for fame or Robert Redford or something like that, my wish is much more serious, and it is that countless future generations of children will be able to reach out and touch this tree and make their wishes. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Cloer appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. I would like to ask that Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Litton, whoever is speak- ing, please help us as best you can to summarize your comments. The record will show your statements in their entirety. But I am going to sit here and try to distill what you have to say, and if you will give it to me in about a 5-minute bite, I will appreciate it. But that is really your call. Mr. McCloskey, chairman of the Sierra Club. Glad to have you, sir. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL McCLOSKEY, CHAIRMAN, SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY MARTIN LITTON, SEQUOIA ALLI- ANCE, ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am testifying here today both on behalf of the Sierra Club na- tionally and the National Audubon Society, which asked to be asso- ciated with these remarks. Both of our organizations do support Mr. Brown's bill, H.R. 2153. As the largest living things in the world, we think these sequoias are indeed a heritage for the entire world. Indeed, I think most people, if asked, who follow the status of protected area questions, would rather imagine that all of the giant sequoias were already in protected areas. But as we know, less than half of them are in national parks or State parks. The remaining portions of them are found mainly in the Sequoia National Forest. The Forest Service did protect them for many years administra- tively. I was told by the regional recreation officer in San Francisco in the mid-1960's that the Sierra Club and the environmental com- munity could rely on the Forest Service to always protect the se- quoias and their environs; they would never be endangered. But that policy changed abruptly in the early 1980's. As we have seen with the slides, logging of other species in the sequoia groves began, and indeed, some sequoias themselves were taken. We have seen sequoia logs in recent years actually lying on the ground. The remaining sequoias in these clearcut areas are subject to wind throw and the effects of drying winds, and their microclimates are being radically changed. These changes in Forest Service policy did trigger a strongly ad- verse reaction from environmentally minded citizens. Protests and lawsuits developed, and that led to a cessation of logging in the groves under the settlement agreement we have heard so much about. 50 But the protection under that agreement is temporary. It is lim- ited in scope. Moreover, the scientific understandings which are needed to undergird it were very limited, and not all of the expec- tations of the agreement have been realized in fact. As Ms. Cloer said, we do regard it now as essentially obsolete and superseded by such things as these spotted owl studies. We think it is time to pursue a permanent statutory arrange- ment to protect these trees, and we congratulate Mr. Brown on ad- vancing an appropriate solution to these problems. This legislation would extend protection to almost all of the remaining stands of this species which are outside of formally designated protected areas. The areas included would include many prime sequoia trees. Three units would be established in the preserve. The principal unit would be largely in Tulare County and would abut the south boundary of Sequoia National Park. Another unit would lie west of Kings Canyon National Park in the Kings River drainage, and the third, a small one, would lie west of Redwood Mountain in Tulare County. The boundaries proposed are large enough to not only protect the stands but their general environments and the habitat of wildlife associated with them. They would provide the sequoias sufficient room to redistribute themselves over time in their prime habitat without further jeopardy. The legislation would end commercial logging in the area that is put into the preserve and would limit further logging to that strict- ly necessary either for scientific purposes or for fire control. I might add that as I read the bill, it would allow that kind of mechanized equipment with a light impact on the land that the Forest Service Chief told us about this morning. The bill would also disallow mining and geothermal development and bring further road construction to an end in this area, where too many logging roads already exist. And with all those roads, this is not a suitable area for wilderness designation, but nonetheless, it deserves protection. Appropriate recreational use would be allowed, as well as com- patible hunting and fishing. Recreation is definitely a purpose of this preserve. The formula put forth in the bill follows that generally embodied in preserves that have been set up with the National Park System in recent decades. There is no inherent reason that the Forest Service could not manage similar areas, particularly if clear guid- ance is provided by the Congress about what is to be allowed and not allowed. We strongly support the bill's provisions for a science advisory board to guide the decisions on the ground and to restore this area's ecological integrity. The whole point is for the preserve to be guided by the findings of scientists from a variety of appropriate disciplines. The best research knowledge should guide the future of this area. We also strongly support the provisions of the bill to mitigate any effects on the local economy, which we think would be rather limited. It is time to complete the work begun over a century ago when the first Federal park land was set aside to protect sequoias. Too 51 little was done then to safeguard this world heritage, and we know now that most of the sequoias are not secure. The present regula- tions and even Presidential proclamations can be changed. Only Congress can provide a final, secure solution, and we urge you to do that. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. McCloskey appears at the con- clusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. All of the statements of all of the witnesses today will be printed in full in the record. Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that Mr. Litton did not intend to be a witness, but he is available for questions or to assist me should you want to do that. Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. ^ [The prepared statement of Mr. Litton appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Mr. Kirk Boyd of Boyd, Huffman & Williams of San Francisco. STATEMENT OF KIRK BOYD, ATTORNEY, BOYD, HUFFMAN & WILLIAMS Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to heed your request that we move quickly, and I am not even going to look at any of the remarks that I have submitted. I understand that they are in the record. Mr. Rose. They will be in the record. Mr. Boyd. What I primarily would like to do is to address some of the questions that have come up today, in particular with the members. Our law firm has represented the various environmental groups in the lawsuits in the Sequoia National Forest that have come up in the eastern district of California. Contrary to the way that they have been portrayed, we have won, and there is now a preliminary injunction that is in effect at Sequoia National Forest until they go back and do some supplemental environmental impact statements to consider new scientific information. That new scientific information is here in a booklet that has been talked about a lot, the CASPO report. In that report, they went and — this was an interagency group of both State ajid Federal rep- resentatives, including Forest Service representatives. They did a thorough scientific analysis in the Sierra Nevada, including the Se- quoia National Forest, and they concluded that trees over 30 inches in diameter should not be cut. The reason that they concluded this is because they said that there has been a top-down approach to logging for a long period of time in the Sequoia to where a lot of the old growth has been re- moved, and there need to be preservation steps taken. That is exactly what Congressman Brown's bill will do. It will take the preservation steps that are necessary to preserve what is left, the remnants of the large trees. That is really what is at stake here. People talk about various approaches, but the real question is whether or not some of the large trees are going to be preserved at this point. 52 Mr. Rose. Let me ask you a question. You don't think that can be done short of Mr. Brown's bill? Mr. Boyd. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman, and I understood the question that you asked about the MSA. What I would like to do is to show you what I think is a very poignant example. I showed this to the Federal district court judge, Judge Wanger, in the east- ern district. What I am going to do is put up a map from the Forest Service. They prepared this map themselves back in 1986. This is a portion of the Sequoia National Forest. At that time, they designated this area as core habitat area for the spotted owl. In particular, I would like you to look at this box right here. You can use that as a point of reference. You see that kind of L-shaped box right there. Now, what I am going to overlap that with is another map Mr. Rose. What is the first map of? Mr. Boyd. The first map is of a portion of the Sequoia National Forest where, by the Forest Service's own analysis, this was core habitat area for the California spotted owl that needed to be pro- tected. What the second map is, it is another analysis that was done by the Forest Service in 1992. What you can see, although it is dif- ficult to tell, but what this shows is that in these two spots right here, right above the words "core habitat," you now have clearcuts in 1992. The way that you can see it even better is when I just take this second map and remove the first, you can see it a lot clearer. Right in through here, this whole area, you can see that it is marked with dotted speckled lines. That was all designated as foraging habitat. You c£in also see it down here, and you can see it down here, the speckled lines. This was in 1991 after the mediated set- tlement agreement, the supposed deal where the Forest Service was going to make a genuine effort to manage the forest. The very next year, you can see, they remapped the lines and they put clearcuts right in the foraging habitat area, right in it, a year later. The Federal judge was shocked by this, and I am not talking about some liberal judge who is a judicial activist; I am talking about Oliver Wanger, who was appointed by President Bush. Mr. Rose. What did he do? Was he in a position to do anything? Mr. Boyd. He was in a position to tell them that they could not just rely on this mediated settlement agreement. They said the same kinds of things. "Oh, the mediated settlement agreement is already there. Your Honor. Everyone can rely on that." He said no. He said you cannot. He said there is new, evolving information, and you have to incorporate that in. That is why when Mr. Thomas today made the statement that we cannot be locked in, that "We cannot lock in knowledge," well, he is right. We cannot, and we cannot lock in the MSA because there is a lot of new information after that that says we cannot proceed with business as usual in the forest. We need to preserve some of the large trees. I would like to move on. I would like to also mention that there are a lot of other sales that are similarly situated to the ones that 53 we won on, and there is every reason to expect that there is going to be protracted Utigation that is going to keep going at great tax- payer expense. When I was there before Judge Wanger, there were six lawyers for the defense, from the Forest Service and from the U.S. Attor- ney's Office, all at taxpayer expense. But there is a solution here that is better than litigation, which is going to just keep going on, and that is to begin this transition from the timber focus, this kind of myopic timber focus, to having a focus on recreation, which is called for in the bill. One of the most important things I saw in Jack Ward Thomas' testimony is he puts right in here an emphasis on the truth, to seek out, demand, and listen to the truth, however disappointing or disconcerting that may be in the short term, and he is exactly right. It is the same thing I tell the jury, and it is the same thing I told Judge Wanger. The truth is that when Mr. Thomas and Mr. Lehman sit here and tell the committee that there are going to be fewer recreation opportunities under this bill, that is inaccurate. The bill provides for hunting, it provides for fishing, it provides for a lot more oppor- tunity for there to be recreation, and that is where the money lies. The below-cost timber sales are costing taxpayers. In those same districts, in Mr. Doole^s district, we have expand- ing areas where the population is growing. People need a place to go, and Sequoia National Forest is a good place Mr. DOOLEY. If I could just ask you to clarify, the hunting and fishing £ind the recreation opportunities will only be available if the board, the appointed board, agrees that they are consistent with the oversill principles. Is that not correct? And so as far as making a statement that there will be expanded activities, that is not cor- rect unless you have some information about who is going to be on this board that is going to make those determinations and agree- ments. Is that not correct? Mr. Boyd. My understanding of this bill is that those opportuni- ties are going to be provided, and if you have a concern about them not being provided Mr. Rose. Wait a minute, he asked you a question. Mr. Boyd. He did. Mr. Rose. Did you answer it? I don't believe you did. Will there be these opportunities unless the board provides them? Mr. Boyd. I don't know whether there will be if the board does not provide them. Mr. Rose. All right. Mr. Boyd. But I would suggest that Mr. Rose. So then you do not know whether there will be these added recreation benefits? Mr. Boyd. I do know that the bill will provide for all of these — hunting, fishing, and other things — and that they will be enhanced because the streams will be Mr. Rose. Provides for them if the board says that they are con- sistent with the management practices in the plan. Mr. Boyd. And that is a legitimate concern, and perhaps there should be some language in the bill added to it to specify that these 54 will be things that will be provided. Take it out of the hands of the board. Mr. Rose. Yes. Mr. Boyd. I think there is every reason for this committee to take this legislation and word it in such a way that you assure that there will be hunting, fishing, that there will be development, like the Ponderosa, for instance, if you spend time up there, there is a lodge that could be a good destination point, so that when people — there is a lot of overflow from the Sequoia and the Kings Canyon, and there are people that need to have places to go, and the Se- quoia National Forest should be a destination for them, and that could be put into the bill, and that should be something that is built in specifically, the recreation opportunities, because I think that those recreation opportunities also go a long way to creating jobs, and that was another thing that was expressed today by the Representatives, that there would be a loss of jobs in this transi- tion. Really, Congressman Farr, he was at the crux of it when he talked about the transition from timber to more recreation, because you can create a lot more jobs if you are putting people into cabins and you are bringing people up in their minivans with their fami- lies up into the Sequoia National Forest to see the trees. Mr. Rose. All right. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Mr. Boyd. I would just like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that it is my hope that in the future I can spend a lot more time concerning the sequoias with my son in the campground than I do in the courtroom. [The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. I understand, and we have Members putting in bills to make other Members' districts into different kinds of preserves and wilderness areas, and so one Member who had such a bill filed by a Member who represents part of Msmhattan introduced a bill to make her part of Manhattan a wilderness area. [Laughter.] We need to find some new negotiators or something. But thank you, Mr. Boyd. Are there any questions? [No response.] Mr. Rose. Next, Mr. Wolf. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. WOLF, FORESTER, ST. LEONARD, MD Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as a forester, it was my good fortune to help create some of the major forest laws, the Wilderness Act, the Resource Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. In fact, I was just reflecting that Speaker Foley, Senator Bump- ers, Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatfield, Congressman Brown, and I, are the last people left who worked on the development of the National Forest Management Act. While I agreed with Mr. Brown on many provisions of that bill as we worked on it, there were some that he and I disagreed on. And so I am delighted to be able to support in principle the concept of his sequoia bill. 55 The first point I would like to make is that trees cannot move from the exact place where they are bom. Man has been around here for 2 million years, and the giant sequoias originated 10 to 15 million years ago. Some of them live as much as 4,000 years, while man seldom makes it for 100. Dr. William Harlow, the noted dendrologist, pointed out 50 years ago that these stands were making their last stand in the Sierras, and how many more tens of centuries the big tree might maintain itself was problematic. Over the millions of years, the sequoias have had just two en- emies: climate and man. Climate we cannot do much about, and man we can. My testimony concentrates on the bill's financial aspects. My ac- quaintance with the Sequoia National Forest started in 1959. I was a professional on the staff of the Senate Interior £uid Insular Af- fairs Committee. Senator Kuchel from California, the ranking Re- publican, and Senator Engle sent me out there. There was a raging controversy over a timber sale on the Kern Plateau, and I was thrown into the middle of that with a group of people very unhappy from all sides of the issue, not dissimilar to the situation today. The Forest Service had made a large timber sale in the Kern Pla- teau to the now defunct Mt. Whitney Timber Company, which was located in Johnsondale in the middle of the Sequoia National For- est. I have attached the 1959 report I did on it and a subsequent analysis I did of timber sales after that period. The Forest Service lost money logging the Kern Plateau timber from 1956 to 1983. Of special note is the modest expenditures in that era to secure regeneration. The Forest Service record for these past 11 years is even more compelling evidence of mounting financial losses. I have attached to this summary statement a table that shows all the forests of California and their record for the 11 years. The key point I would like to make about that is that the Forest Service earmarks a big chunk of its receipts, and on some of these forests they earmark so much that they are in a negative posture financially before they even talk about the appropriated costs. Only the Federal Government can do that. A private citizen could not continually do that. The Sequoia is the weakest forest for this 11-year period of the 17 forests in region 5, of those that cut over 10 million feet a year. It earmarked an average of $197,000 a year more than it took in, before counting appropriations. Now, to put it on another basis, the Lassen National Forest in northern California had $17 million a year left after earmarking. That's a dramatic difference. To put it on a fairer basis of per thousand board feet, the Se- quoia was $2.60 a thouszind in the red; whereas, the Lassen was $100 in the black. And, yet, both forests earmarked about the same amount of their receipts in dollar terms. The Sierra National For- est doesn't lose as much money, but it does lose a considerable amount. In 1991, Chief Dale Robertson wrote to the New York Times, "Since 1952, tree growth has increased by 67 percent on the na- tional forests." And the growth exceeds the timber harvest by 55 56 percent. Dale Robertson omitted that the cut had gone up 109 per- cent, in addition to the fact that these figures combine hardwood and softwood. President Bush, before he went to Rio in 1992, said that annual forest growth now exceeds timber harvest by 37 percent, nationally, and the total national volume of wood is 25 percent greater than it was in 1952. That Forest Service data combines hardwoods and softwoods. When you strip out the hardwoods, there is still a net gain in softwoods. So the question raised is that with a national expansion of our softwood inventory and with growth greater than cut, does it make sense to sell national forest timber, when it creates a fi- nancial loss to our deficit-ridden Government; or, environmental conservatism is a wiser choice to make? Why does the Forest Service sell timber at a loss? It is because it prices its timber based upon the agency estimate of the value of the timber to the buyer, not the agency cost to grow, manage, pro- tect and supply the timber to industry, and that is a significant dif- ference. We've been doing this for years this way. It is the way we started doing it. We just keep on doing it. The Forest Service does not real- ly have a good system of tracking what its costs are. Now, don't misunderstand me, Mr. Rose. I believe subsidies are part of the American way of life. We subsidize a lot of things. The question is, how much do you subsidize something, why do you sub- sidize it, where, and what should the test be? The Forest Service doesn't track representative sample costs for timber sales, as required by section 6(1) of the National Forest Management Act. And that was a provision that Congressman George Brown authored. Here it is, almost 20 years later, and they don't do this sort of tracking. It's just complete ignoring of the law. How much of these two forests should be in a giant Sequoia pre- serve is a matter for the committee to decide. I made a number of suggestions in my statement. You can look at them and see wheth- er any of them have any merit. But I think the key point is that particularly the Sequoia Na- tional Forest, and to some extent the Sierra Nevada, are affected by subsidized timber sales. You are not being asked to give up net Treasury income — profit, that is — ^to save the unique giant sequoia, or to reduce logging. One of the other points that I would make is community stabil- ity. You will hear a lot of pitches about community stability. If I had a sawmill, I would want all the timber I could get, no matter where I got it from. I used to buy private timber. I worked as a private forester. You don't care about what it costs somebody else to grow the timber. You pay them what you can afford to pay them. But private forest owners don't have to sustain the cut or the en- vironment, and timber companies never have to make a binding commitment to stay in business. And if you have any doubt about that, just think of the saga of the Mt. Whitney Lumber Company, as you hear talk about the Sequoia. They had a mill at Johnsondale. It's long gone. And it's long gone because it wasn't fi- nancially feasible for them to continue. 67 On the question of county payments, Mr. Rose Mr. Rose. Summarize, if you will. Go ahead. Mr. Wolf. I think that there ought to be some consideration given to changing the whole system of pa3rment in lieu of taxes. What I suggest is that you try on the Sequoia National Forest/Si- erra Nevada area to do it on a test basis and see how it would work. My final point would be that a multiple use is realized by apply- ing a wide range of approaches. Preservation of the giant sequoias is part of the multiple-use doctrine. Thanks very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. I'm going to have to leave. Mr. Condit is going to have to take the chair for a while, Mr. Dooley is going to come back, and then Mr. Brown may come in between you, but we are going to kind of switch this around a little bit. We've asked all the witnesses to hold their testimony to 5 min- utes. Are there any questions for this panel? Mr. Dooley. Mr. Chair? The same thing here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCloskey, I appreciate your comments about the immediate settlement agreement basically being an interim agreement. And I would agree, I think that there is some merit to that. But I also think that the meaning of settlement agreement did nothing to preclude the new science that was coming in, the new directives that were being provided through Kaspaw or anything from being implemented as a part of that. My concern is, what we have is a process that the Sierra Club was involved in, and in fact was one of the signatories to it, that did reach a mutual set of agreements with some of the timber in- dustry, with the Attorney General that was part of a negotiated settlement. Now, what do you think in light of the fact that this legislation is coming in, and is advocating zero timber harvest, which is not based on science, either, which we heard a lot about already? What is the likelihood that we can ever try to recreate a situa- tion that can try to bring the despaired parties back together again, if we have said as a precedent, "Yes, we'll set down and we'll tadk to you. Well negotiate a settlement. But 2 years down the road, don't be surprised if we come in and place in a piece of legis- lation or try to gain support for it that will result in zero harvest, which will take you clear out of the business." You know, how do we deal with that? Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Dooley, I think we do regard mediation as one of a series of approaches which can have a place, from time to time. But we don't regard it as an end in itself. The ends that con- cern us are doing right by the land and doing the right thing. Mr. Dooley. So then the agreements that you agreed to as a part of the mediated settlement agreement, or the Sierra Club did — I mean, you are acknowledging that those weren't right by the land when you signed off on them? 58 Mr. McCloskey. Well, two points; one, my understanding is that we explicitly reserved the right, separate and apart from the agree- ment, to pursue further legislative efforts. Mr. DOOLEY. There's nothing that precluded that agreement, you're right. Mr. McCloskey. And we said very clearly that this was not the end of the line as far as we were concerned. We did have lawsuits pending. This wasn't our idea. We were induced to go into it, to try it as an alternative to litigation. But as we said in our testimony, and Ms. Cloer said so clearly, we think a lot of the expectations were not realized, the scientific studies weren't completed, or they weren't done adequately. More information has become available, and we think it's just time to move on to deal with the appropriate framework for these kinds of issues. Mr. DoOLEY. If I'm not correct, didn't the mediated settlement agreement also have pretty much a dispute resolution process that was a part of the agreement, that if you had some concerns or if you had some complaints about violations of the features of the provision, that there was a mechanism that was set up? Is that right, Carla? Ms. Cloer. That's true. However, the settlement agreement did have some escape clauses for the Forest Service. Mr. DoOLEY. It did have the dispute resolution process, correct? Ms. Cloer. The process of resolution was that we would put in writing our concerns. The Forest Supervisor would answer in writ- ing, and then if we were not satisfied, we could go to court. That's in here, if you would like to have me show it to you now. Mr. DoOLEY. There was a prescribed complaint process? Ms. Cloer. That's true. We would put in it writing, and they would write back and then we could get it recorded. Mr. DoOLEY. Did the Sierra Club, up until the last month, I guess it is, did they ever once file a complaint under the processes that were prescribed? Ms. Cloer. Yes, we have. Mr. DooLEY. They have actually filed a complaint to the Sierra Club under the prescribed mechanisms in the mediated settlement agreement? Ms. Cloer. Yes. Several times we have written letters sa3dng, "This is our official notice that we do not agree with what you are doing. We believe it violates a settlement agreement." Mr. DoOLEY. If you would provide copies to the committee of that communication, it would be most helpful. Ms. Cloer. I would be very happy to do that. Mr. DoOLEY. Again, on the issue, Mr. Boyd, you were talking about the evolving science. We have a base science. And you have spoken to one feature, Mr. Thomas' comments, that you thought were most enlightening. The one that I found most enlightening was the fact that he stat- ed that there was absolutely no science that could support, at this time, the actual prohibition of a management that involved any logging. How can you, at one point, say that we have to base some of our decisions on evolving science, and at the other point, we come in 59 with a complete prohibition of any kind of logging as a manage- ment alternative on more than 442,000 acres, and thus justify this legislation? Mr. Boyd. I think that you have to consider the types of science that he was discussing, and par them down a bit. As he said, "There's a lot we like." And I think some of the science that he was talking about that he likes is here in the spotted owl report, saying, listen, we have to reevaluate our assessment of suma-culture, and think about pre- serving some of the biggest trees, and not just do a top down ap- proach. At the same time, I understand some of his concerns, particularly with respect to the fuel loading. He is saying that there are new mechanical devices that can come in, and perhaps it would work better than draft horses. And if that is the case, it makes a lot of sense to me, although I'm speaking just for myself here, to amend the bill, and allow for fuel loading removal that way. I think that fuel loading removal is also going to create a heck of a lot of jobs for people, that are pres- ently working in the timber industry. Mr. DOOLEY. But it's your assessment that allowing for the man- agement of the Sequoia National Forest that allows for some har- vest out of it which, right now I think this last year was 27 million acres, is incompatible with the preservation of the sequoia redwood trees? Mr. Boyd. I do, in part, because of the way in the Kaspaw Report that they have said that given the top down nature of suma-culture in the past 100 years, in order to preserve options, you shouldn't be cutting the biggest trees out. But, also, I think that's true for economic reasons, in particular, for the people coming out of your district and Mr. Lehman's dis- trict, and then all the way from Greorgia or Minnesota or the other areas, as well. Mr. DoOLEY. Well then you are assuming though that logging and recreational uses are mutually exclusive. And right now, we have 8.5 million visitors going to the Sequoia National Forest, which is double what is going to utilize Yosemite now. And that's under the management regime we have now, which I don't agree with all of it. I don't agree with layer cuts. There are some opportu- nities there. But what you're doing, and as a part of this legislation, you are prescribing a management technique that says, we can have no timber harvesting. Because then you are sajdng that if we step away from that, it's going to accelerate recreational use. And I have a hard time understanding how you can, especially even on the em- pirical data, make that statement. Mr. Boyd. Well, Congressman Dooley, I think that you and the other members of this subcommittee are going to have to look at how much of the area around the growth needs to be protected in order to preserve the recreational values. And if you look at what's happened in the past in areas like that, one has coined the term "Apocalypse Growth" where they went in and they Mr. Dooley. That was a tragedy. 60 Mr. Boyd. Right. And so in the same way that they thought that they could remove some trees around the groves and leave the oth- ers, I think that mentality is still continuing, to some extent, when they say that we'll preserve the groves, but not the other forests surrounding it. I think that you are going to have to look at how much of that forest surrounding the groves you are going to preserve. And this bill is the right vehicle for that. And that's where I think you can all work together and find a way to amend this bill, so that you will preserve the groves and maintain enough of the ecosystem, as I think that falls in line with the science that we began talking about with Jack Ward Thomas. Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. CONDIT [assuming chair]. Mr. Pombo. Mr. POMBO. I can't disagree with what you are saying now, but I think that if you go back and read the bill that you will find that what you are advocating is impossible under the conditions that are outlined in the bill. When you require the 440-some thousand acres to return to its natural state, it precludes any other use, and specifically in the bill, it precludes any other use that could possibly happen in that entire perimeter. Mr. Boyd. Well, Congressman — I don't mean to cut you off. Mr. Pombo. No, go ahead. Mr. Boyd. Congressman Pombo, if that's the case, where if it cuts off any other use such as hunting and fishing and recreational uses, then I'm opposed to it. I'm opposed to it, plain and simple. Because if I understand it Mr. Pombo. I'm glad to have that on the record. Mr. Boyd. Fine. Because my understanding of this bill is that is it going to shift some of the emphasis away from just kind of a my- opic view of timber development, and have more of an emphasis on recreation. And this is really to the benefit. I've been up to Camp Nelson, and I've been to the various rec- reational areas, and they are underutilized. There could be a lot more people brought in, even from your district, people that want to go to destinations, to go to the Sequoias, that perhaps in the summer months, you can't even get into Sequoia National Park, a lot of the time. So they would be able to go to the Sequoia National Forest, and that would be more developed for recreational areas. I don't under- stand this bill to preclude that at all. If it did somehow, I would be opposed to it. Mr. Pombo. A lot of times, we try to sell this kind of legislation to the public by promising increased recreational opportunities. If you go back and read the bill and understand what it says, the Secretary is authorized to regulate and control times and means of access and use of the preserve. It specifically calls for the perma- nent road closures of existing roads. It specifically outlines primi- tive recreation opportunities within the preserve. It, in effect, lim- its the amount of recreational activity that can occur inside of the preserve. When you limit access by limiting the number of roads that can go inside, when you limit access by specifically sa5dng that non- 61 motorized vehicles or no motorized vehicle can enter into the ma- jority of the preserve, you are specifically limiting the amount of people who can go in and enjoy the preserve. Instead of saying w^e are going to build more roads to increase recreational opportunities, we are going to open this up as much as possible to increased recreational opportunities, which is what you are sajdng. If you go back and read the bill, it is saying exactly the opposite, that we are going to limit access as much as we pos- sibly can into the preserve. Mr. Boyd. I don't think that that is what the bill does. And I'll tell you what the solution is, for you, as a Congressman, and your colleagues, to specifically write into the bill that there shall be roads, and you can even, at future hearings, ask where will the roads be for the recreational opportunities? And you can say, where are the campgrounds going to be? I think it's a good idea to go ahead and have all of the rec- reational opportunities spelled out, because the way I understEind it, with all the people that I've worked with, is that those rec- reational opportunities are going to be enhanced. Mr. POMBO. I was in an area not far from here, this past sum- mer, which was recently purchased by the Forest Service. It pre- viously had been a privately owned parcel. And it had a beautiful waterfall on it, and it had a road that led up to it, and it was just a beautiful area. I was talking with the foresters from the area, and their com- ment was that the road that we drove in on was going to be closed to the public as part of the deal in purchasing of the property. And it was several miles from the nearest road. So anyone who would ever want to see what I had got the oppor- tunity to see this summer, after this spring when they are going to close the road, will no longer have access to it unless they have a backpack £ind hike in, or have the opportunity to ride a horse in, if that's allowed under the plan. We are continuing to put more and more property off limits to the general public by our actions. And with this kind of bill, with the language that is included in this bill, I see more of that coming into play. We are going to limit access of the general public to this area, for the sake of preserving this in its natural state. I think that you have to be honest. If we are going to set it aside and say that this is going to be off limits to the public, and it is going to be preserved in 100 percent natural state, and only certain scientists, biologists, or certain people that work for the Forest Service are the only ones that are going to be allowed in, then you have to be honest with the people and tell them that is what you are doing. Don't try to tell them that we are going to increase recreational opportunities, at the same time while in the bill itself, you are lin- ing out exactly how you are going to decrease the ability of people to visit this park. Mr. Boyd. I don't think the bill does decrease the opportunities. And I think that if you have that concern, the way to remedy it is for there to be an amended version of the bill with language that is very specific about the recreational areas, so that the truth is our guide, just as Jack Ward Thomas has said. 80-635 0-94 -3 62 And let the truth be that we are going to increase recreational opportunities, and let it be spelled out how that is going to happen, to your satisfaction. Mr. POMBO. It is a major concern of mine, because I believe that we are dishonest with the American people when we continue to tell them that we are going to increase recreational opportunities by setting aside all these areas as wilderness areas and everything else. My main concern with this type of legislation is the effect on the private property owners, encircling them with this type of a pre- serve. Because I believe it will drastically limit their ability to con- tinue doing what they are currently doing on the property. Mr. Wolf. Could I make a quick observation, Mr. Chairman, on this point? Mr. CONDIT. Yes, and then we can close it up. Mr. Wolf. The 1987 act provides the Secretary may make rea- sonable rules and regulations governing the use and occupgmcy of the national forests. He has had that authority for nearly 100 years, and he can make any regulation he wants. Right now, 70,000 miles of the road system on the national for- ests are closed. You can find it out by looking in the Forest Service annual report. While you may talk about what this bill does, the Secretary has all this authority already. This bill doesn't grant him new authority. It just says, again, what the law already says. The other point I think that you ought to keep in mind is that on the Sequoia National Forest, you could drop the cut 35 to 45 million feet under the allowable sale quantity, and you would be down at the level the cutting has been for the past 5 years. When you start talking about the effect on the cut, you need to be considering the real effect versus the theoretical effect. Theoreti- cally, you could drop the cut a great deal. But, realistically, it's al- ready 35 to 45 million feet below what they can do now. Mr. POMBO. The real effect of this bill on the timber cut is that it eliminates it. Mr. Wolf. Well, the real effect is, again, the National Forest Management Act and the 1897 act — all it says is, the Secretary may sell timber. There is no prescribed amount, required by law, on any national forest. That's the way it's been since 1987. It's "may." Mr. POMBO. Well, we can go back a little bit further than that, and bring up a document called the Constitution of the United States, and specifically pull out the Fifth Amendment, which guar- antees people private property rights. I mean, if you want to go back and look at documents, we put aside the private property right guarantee that's held in the Con- stitution of the United States, every day, when we act on this com- mittee and the other committees on which I serve on. Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. I'd like to follow up on Mr. Pombo's question, and I'd like you to keep your answers brief so we can move to the next panel, so I'll keep my questions brief, if I can. Ms. Cloer, you had said that the private rights within the pre- serve will not be at risk. Can you guarantee the owners or resi- dents within or adjacent to the giant sequoia ecosystem that these residents will be exempt from condenmation or removal? How can 63 you assure that the scientific panel will allow any residential use within the area? Ms. Cloer. I think that we need to look at the wilderness bill. There is private property in the wilderness, and I realize that there is a push, sometimes, to try to acquire it. But a lot of the private property that they are talking about are subdivisions which have been around since 1900. They have homes, they have sewer systems, they have water systems. They have an infrastructure in place. And I do not think there is anything in the bill whatsoever that would imply that these communities would suddenly lose their water rights and that sort of thing. I believe that the only homeowners that may have some con- cern— and maybe an amendment of the bill should include this — there are 99-year renewable leases which are Federal lands, where people have the right to have their own cabins and things there. And it is possible that if some of those are determined by the sci- entific board to be degrading the area, that the Federal Govern- ment would have the right to terminate the leases. Of course, they have that right, right now. I would like to see something in the bill which would affirm their right to continue those leases. May I just say a couple of things to Mr. Pombo? Right now, ORVs can not use the entire forest. There are regulations where they can use designated trails. In the 2,000 miles of Sequoia Na- tional Forest, many of those roads are gated. You can't use them now. And most of them lead to clearcuts. I would say that the transportation analysis, which is called for in the bill, would re- quire some of those be put to bed. But I firmly believe that if you log off the forest you, de facto, get rid of your recreational opportunity. And so you have to have a beautiful forest, and then you automatically have some place to recreate. If you log it, you are getting rid of your opportunity to have a certain type of recreational value, too. Mr. PoMBO. I don't think that there is anybody that has testified yet, or anybody that sits as a member of this committee, who has advocated logging this forest, or has had advocated clearcuts. That was never a subject that has been brought up. So to say that is in- consistent with the testimony that has been given or the questions that have been asked, to this point. There are no recreational opportunities in the forest without the forest existing. But there is no recreational opportunities in the for- est if you don't let people go in. Just knowing that there is a forest out there might make you feel good, but it doesn't do you any good if you can't go in and see it and enjoy it. Ms. Cloer. I don't think there is anything that kept people from going into it. I think that some of my comments about logging as an alternative are based on my reading the testimony that has been already submitted for the record by the people who have not spoken yet. So you are correct that no one, yet today, has testified that they want to log the forest. Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Wolf Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir. Mr. CONDIT. You stated that the Presidential proclamation is not adequate protection, because it can be rescinded by another Presi- 64 dent. Are you aware of any proclamation that has been voided or rescinded? Mr. Wolf. I didn't make that statement, sir. Mr. CONDIT. How did I get this information that you did? Mr. McCloskey, did you make that statement? Mr. McCloskey. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There have been certain national monuments set aside by Presidential proclamation that have later been withdrawn and rescinded. Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Wolf, do you know what the cost estimate is for H.R. 2153? Mr. Wolf. I don't think you can make an accurate cost estimate, because a lot depends on what you are going to do under it. But I would suspect that the total cost would not be greater than is now being expended on the forest. It would be a shifting of money from one sort of activity to another. I don't think it would cost you any more. Mr. CONDIT. Well, the CBO declares that it would be a direct spending of $2 million in 1994, $17 million between 1994 and 1998, requiring offsets, subject to appropriation, and it would be a 1994 appropriation of $17 million. Is that accurate? Mr. Wolf. I have just seen the CBO report. I haven't had a chance to study it carefully. But my view is, the way we do our bookkeeping in the Federal Grovemment, and I speak as an ex-Fed- eral employee, defies common sense, in many cases. So lots of things that are tallied up as costs aren't costs in the real world. And some that we omit are real costs. Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Pombo, do you have any additional questions for this panel? Mr. Pombo. No. Mr. CONDIT. Thank you very much. We have a change in the program. We are going to take panel 5 next. Mr. Dooley would like to be here for panel 4, and so we beg your indulgence, and we will get back to panel 4. So we will take panel 5, and I hope they are here. Dr. Rundel and Dr. Kondolf? Mr. CONDIT. Dr. Kondolf. Mr. Kondolf. Also, Don Gasser, I hope. Mr. CONDIT. Yes, Mr. Gasser. Dr. Rundel is from the department of biology and laboratory of biomedical and environmental science, from the University of Cali- fornia-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. We are delighted to have you here, sir. We will begin with you. STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. RUNDEL, DEPARTMENT OF BIOL- OGY AND LABORATORY OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRON- MENTAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGE- LES Mr. Rundel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am a plant ecologist. I have worked with the University of Cali- fornia in my career, and I have worked with scientific studies of giant sequoias for the last three decades. So I speak here as a proponent of the importance, in a general sense, of an ecosystem approach to management of these areas. 65 With your indulgence, I would like to show a few Vu-Graphs as I talk. Mr. CONDIT. Absolutely. Mr. RUNDEL. I think to make some of the points better, on what I would like to talk about. There are really three major points that I want to make today, and I'll try to make my comments brief. One is that we are dealing with very complex systems, much more complex than I think we often give these areas credit for. Sec- ond, they are very dynamic systems — dynamic in space and dy- namic in time. And third, these areas are going to require active managenient, particularly with regard to fire; and that fire is not necessarily a bad factor. It's a very good factor, and in fact, a very necessary fac- tor in these groves. But the long-term resource management, a commitment to that, is absolutely critical. I agree with Dr. Thomas in this respect com- pletely. [Vu-Graphs shown.] Mr. RuNDEL. In a suma-cultural approach to management, we tend to look at single species. We look at certainly a variety of com- plex factors of the environment and interactions that affect these. But I think in the last few decades, ecosystem science has made tremendous advances, and we know much more now about other lands of factors that affect these environments. And we know they are affected by a whole variety of causes of factors, both biotic and abiotic. One of those we talked about today is fire. And fire is certainly absolutely critical. Many of the discussions of management implica- tions have to do with reducing large amounts of fuels that have built up in these groves. While that certainly is very critical to maintain natural fire cycles, the fire itself is an important part of the biology of these species. What I'm illustrating here is that without fires and large amounts of layer, there is very little sequoia reproduction. And at the reproduction, while it requires mineral soil, it also requires the heat of a fire for the seeds to be shed. Sequoias have cones that remain on the trees for as long as 15 to 20 years, much like some of the large groves in the Sierra Ne- vada. And the cones are only opening and shedding their seeds, providing the propagules of the appropriate geno-t3rpes for this area, with the heat of a fire. So mere mechanical manipulation alone is necessary perhaps, but not sufficient, to provide for future sequoia generations. Aiid with past management practices, we've had a tremendous lack of reproduction in these areas. An ecosystem approach is one that would provide much more consideration of other factors beyond the immediate environment, and much of my concerns with the piesent management philoso- phies for these growth areas is drawing an arbitrary line around a very small grove. A small line of that nature doesn't take into account kinds of eco- system properties that operate at much larger landscape levels — properties like fire distributions, hydrological inputs, nutrient cy- cling flows, atmospheric inputs — all of these are extremely impor- 66 tant biotic interactions, but often have effects much wider than this narrow area of a 500 foot or 1,000 foot boundary around the groves. Also, in terms of the living and dead biomass bark, this particu- lar component of the forests themselves, these are much more com- plex in terms of other organisms, so biodiversity becomes very im- portant. And these systems can not operate as natural systems without a microbiology in the soil that fixes nitrogen and decom- poses litter. It can't operate without animals as seed dispersers, as regulators of other properties. We have to have a proper appreciation of the importance of biodiversity. We can't manage these zones as museum preserves for giant sequoias alone. And no management is very bad management in this area. Part of what I want to really mention then is — ^this is kind of a complex drawing here — but the kinds of environmental factors that occur affect dramatically what will happen with the future of giant sequoias. And the kind of factors that I want to stress in here are that there is a big difference between no fires, light fires, and mod- erate and intense fires, in terms of the environmental factors and interactions that lead to sequoias' success in reproducing. Moderate and intense fires, which we are a bit afraid of because of urban areas, which certainly are a valid consideration, are very important for these groves in the long run. We know now from his- torical studies that it is these intense fires from which most of the reproduction occurs. On a final Vu-Graph here, if we talk about mixed conifer forests then, I also want to keep in mind that these are very dynamic sys- tems in space and time. We think about these as being a very stable system on the west side of the Sierra Nevada. But 8,000 years ago, now we know from the pollen record that sage brush and ponderosa pine dominated the west side of the Sierras. And against conventional wisdom, the sequoias are becoming more and more restricted. We have the largest area of giant se- quoias today, than we've historically or in geological history for the last 8,000 years. But since the warmer period following the last glacier, sequoias have expanded their range. They are in areas where they were not before. I think an appropriate scientific management of the grove, in the long run, for the preservation of the species, requires us to consider not just the current geographical boundaries, but a much broader concept of the mixed conifer/sequoia ecosystem, in which these spe- cies might well occur, not in the next decade, but in the next cen- tury or future centuries. TTiank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rundel appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. CONDIT. I don't want to push anyone, but we have a vote going on. Dr. Kondolf, how many minutes will your opening state- ment take? Mr. Kondolf. About 5 minutes. Mr. CONDIT. Why don't you do your opening statement. After your opening statement, we will recess for approximately 5 to 10 minutes, and then we'll pick up from that. 67 Mr. POMBO. Gary, if you don't mind, could we just run out right now and vote, and come right back? It will only take us about 10 minutes to go and come back. Mr. CONDIT. Well, the problem is, we've got Mr. Dooley, who is coming back at 1:40 p.m. to chair this, and he will be coming back, so that will get us close to 1:40 p.m. I mean, is there any problem with Dr. Kondolf doing his opening statements? Mr. PoMBO. Will we make the vote? Mr. CONDIT. Yes, we'll make the vote. We've got time to do that, if he doesn't take more than 5 minutes, and you and I don't talk that much. Go ahead. STATEME^rT OF G. MATHIAS KONDOLF, ASSISTANT PROFES- SOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, UNIVERSITY OF CALI- FORNIA-BERKELEY, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL P. CHRIS- TENSON, BIOLOGIST; AND ROY KEENE, FORESTER AND EX- ECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC FORESTRY FOUNDATION Mr. Kondolf. I'll talk fast. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I'm talking about erosion and sedimentation caused by logging, logging roads, and grazing. This is a little different than the topic of the trees themselves, but I have studied this in the Sequoia Na- tional Forest. Mr. Jack Ward Thomas indicated earlier that he felt the area is well managed today. I will testify that the scientific evidence dem- onstrates that there are serious erosion and sedimentation prob- lems in the Sequoia National Forest. The evidence of these problems has been ignored by the Forest Service, and some of the evidence, in fact, suggests that some of the problems are actually covered up by a misleading, confusing, and easily manipulated method of analysis. The term used for erosion and sedimentation caused by logging, logging roads, and grazing is cumulative watershed effects. The word "cumulative" is used to refer to the fact that these effects move off-site, affecting areas downstream. They can accumulate over time, becoming significant. Many small impacts over a large area can add up over time to have a significant effect. As an example, there is Redwood National Park, where the tall trees grow, or the tallest trees in the world reside. These, of course, are coast redwoods. This area is threatened by erosion caused by logging that has taken place many miles upstream, and most of it over two decades ago. But it has moved down through and caused excessive deposits in that area of the stream. In the Sequoia National Forest, the cumulative effects have al- ready occurred. I have observed numerous sites where erosion has occurred and sediment is getting into the stream. And the Forest Service acknowledges these impacts in their field reports. One example, from the Forest Service Fisheries Working Paper for the Casa-Guard Timber Sale Stakes, "Management activities, including past timber sales, timber-associated rating, ORV use, livestock grazing, and others have combined to increase the sedi- ment load. The main impact of the increased sediment load ap- pears to be the filling of pools and the corresponding reduction of 68 fish habitat availabiHty." That's a quote from the Forest Service paper. Now, these effects certainly fit the definition of cumulative wa- tershed effects. Yet, the Forest Service "analysis" had concluded at the same time that there were no effects. And the way this analysis works is, it adds up all the past things that have gone on in the basin, and it makes an assumption about how much disturbance the basin can accommodate. It compares these two, and if their computation of past impacts is less than what they believe or assume cl'a be accommodated, it is declared to be OK to cut more timber. This general approach was developed in another national forest in California and has adapted to the Sequoia National Forest. It has not been field verified in the Sequoia National Forest. The method assumes that revegetation is successful, which is often not the case. It also underestimates the area covered by roads, and it also applies fudge factors to reduce the computed im- pact of roads. There are some other problems which I talk about in my written testimony, including manipulation of some of the data that are used in the analysis. Now, this so-called analysis of cumulative affects by the Forest Service would not be passing work if it were submitted to me in a university course. It is not consistent with the principles of geomorphology and hydrology, and it is inconsistent with the evi- dence on the ground. As far as what should be done, I advocate collection of basic hy- drologic data as a basis for making sound management decisions. The Forest Service sends people into the field, and they spend a lot of time filling out forms for what is basically a fanciful method. It does not actually model what's going on at the ground. The Forest Service staff does not make measurements of peak run-off from various drainage basins nor of erosion. Yet, their method purports to predict changes in peak run-off. The students in my hydrology class, who have no previous background in hydrol- ogy* go out in the field and they do more measurements of peak run-off than the entire Sequoia National Forest does. I will simply conclude by pointing out that most of our attention has been directed at the trees themselves, but we can't ignore the insidious effects of increased erosion and sedimentation in the eco- system. The problems are serious, and the evidence is quite clear. The Forest Service has not adequately or honestly evaluated these problems. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kondolf appears at the conclu- sion of the hearing.] Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Dr. Kondolf I would Uke to mention, you are an assistant professor of environmental planning. Univer- sity of California-Berkeley, in Berkeley, and we are delighted to have you here. You have an associate with you, Mr. Christenson. Do you have a comment? We're not going to take your comment, now. I just wanted to know if you will have one. Mr. Christenson. I would just state that I'm here to support Dr. Kondolf, £ind some of the same concerns he has, I have. I do work for the California Fish and Game, but I'm not here representing 69 them. I probably would not be allowed to. My experience is mostly in aquatic, and I'm concerned about the erosion. Mr. CONDIT. OK. And then we'll take Mr. Keene when we come back. I just want to tell you, I apologize. We have a vote going on. We have about 4 minutes to vote. Someone will come back and chair the meeting. I apologize for the confusion. [Recess taken.] Mr. Brown [assuming chair]. In order to continue the hearing and try and finish it before midnight, or some other unreasonable hour, I would like to continue with where we left off. I understand that Mr. Gasser was about to testify. Is that cor- rect? Mr. Gasser. I believe so. Mr. Brown. All right. In that case, let's continue with you, Mr. Gasser. STATEMENT OF DONALD P. GASSER, LECTURER AND SPECIALIST, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY Mr. Gasser. Thank you. I'm Don Gasser. I'm a lecturer and spe- cialist at the University of California at Berkeley. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I would like to describe a small forest to you, Whitaker's Forest owned by the University of California, which is only 320 acres, ad- jacent to Kings Canyon National Park, but it is the site upon which much work has gone on that has increased our understanding of giant sequoia ecosystems. For instance, the initial work on controlled burning that led to our understanding of the role of fire in giant sequoia forests was done at Whitaker's Forest, and the subsequent let-bum policy of the National Park System was developed from work in these envi- rons. We have the oldest measured growth plots in California, first measured in 1914. And so I would like to tell you the tale of two stands. The first stand I want to tell you about regenerated from a fire in 1875 into pure giant sequoias. That stand started with over 500 trees per acre, and now has about 200 trees per acre, with the other 300 that have died of natural causes, creating both fgillen and standing dead. And here is a picture of that site. Would you like me to pass this to you? [Photographs displayed.] Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Gasser. This stand, as you will see, is in serious danger of catastrophic wild fire. It has little aesthetic appeal. It is difficult to walk through. It is dark in the middle of the day, and has no understory vegetation. There is a similar stand down the hill from this, also regenerated in 1875. But it was in this second site that the fire started, because it was a slash fire, following clear cutting. This area has been manipulated and managed, and after a vir- tual clearcutting, it regenerated strongly in giant sequoia. It was 70 thinned in 1948, thinned in 1964, prescribe burned in 1965, 1966, and again prescribe burned in 1978. These pictures give you an idea of the way these stands look. Site 2 is low in fire hazard, with little ground fuel, vigorous growth, a pleasure to walk through, and it possesses a visual qual- ity of an open forest st£ind with a bright green understory. To summarize this information, both stands had similar charac- teristics in about 1880, being crowded with vigorous young giant sequoia that had germinated following fire. Through both pre- scribed fire and careful thinning, site two now has fewer bigger trees, reduced fire hazard, and improved aesthetic quality when compared to site 1. I should have made this bigger, but figure 1 graphically shows the decline in numbers that has occurred through natural succes- sion and mortality over 80 years of measurement. The site 1 aver- age number is shown here, and site 2 is shown as a static point; site 1 having 228 trees per acre, site 2 having 95 trees per acre. If we were to extend the time line on that graph to the year 3000 — ^that's 11 feet away from the last point on the scale — the studies on park lands adjacent to Whitaker's Forest show that under natural conditions, only two to eight giant sequoia trees will exist per acre at that time. The rest of the hundreds of trees that started in the natural forest will be dead. It is also noteworthy that on sites 1 and 2, neither of these has added any new giant sequoias, following those that were estab- lished in the 1875 fires. Without hot fires and open forest canopy, giant sequoia seedlings rarely ever survive for more than a few weeks. This becomes significant when we realize that the old veterans do fall over. They are not part of the unchanging elements of the site. In the eight decades of university ownership of Whitaker's Forest, 8 of our 220 large giant sequoias have been lost to windthrow, a loss of 0.045 percent per year. This rate of loss generally agrees with that experienced on other ancient forest ownerships, and at that rate, we will lose about 50 percent of the remaining old-growth sequoia trees in the next 1,200 years. Gradual mortality, however, is not the real threat to continued existence of giant sequoia growth. The continual regeneration on giant sequoia sites of shade-tolerant species such as white fir and incense-cedar, coupled with the high danger of wildfire in Califor- nia forests, dictates that we can not merely watch the forest and wait. Forest succession is a slow march to the future, and will continue to function in ways spectacular and not. Whether or not it fulfills human desires, it will continue to change ecosystems, habitats, for- ests, and lives. Our nonresponse to the lessons of biology has provided us with some stem lessons and serious consequences, and we will pay a very high price for our ignorance and our arrogance as recent con- flagrations in Yellowstone National Park and in the Oakland Hills have so devastatingly shown. Neither natural forest succession nor human manipulation are environmentally benign, nor are they necessarily scenic. Yet, both 71 action and inaction affect our forests and their habitats with both short- and long-term results. As a logger for 7 years and a forester for 26, I have seen that my activities in forest management often turn green into brown or black for months or even years, depending on the ecosystem. Yet, I have returned to areas that I have cut, to forests that I have burned, to trees that I have planted, and seen the develop- ment through growth and succession that have turned these areas into beautiful growing forests, because black and brown naturally turn into green, rejuvenating the land, and reusing the soil. Trees grow. And with knowledge, forethought and care, through eco- system management, we can create and restore anew our amazing resources. The giant sequoia resource is almost magical in its ability to ful- fill human desires and needs. As some of the information provided to you from the giant sequoia symposium shows, the young giant sequoia trees grow two to four times faster than their coniferous neighbors. They have wood qualities that meet or exceed those of coastal redwood. Combine those facts with natural insect, disease and fire resist- ance, an ability to grow in mixed or pure stands, and its fabled beauty, and here is a tree that we should indeed revere and pre- serve through much greater use. We must manipulate and manage, carefully and with forethought, with fire and with ax, if we are to be sure of the continuance of this fabulous resource. We Eire part of a larger ecosystem, in which humanity must be included as a part. We cannot continue to ignore our conflicting de- sires for both beauty and products. Since residents of this Nation continue to consume the world's forests in increasing quantities per capita, per year, we have a responsibility to preserve forests around the world. My colleague. Bill Libby, points out if we are to preserve, say, 1,000 acres of land in California, we are probably increasing har- vest elsewhere, adversely affecting at least 5,000 acres in some place like Equador, causing environmental degradation and an in- ordinately higher level of species extinctions and displacement of indigenous peoples. No sane person would disagree with the goals of this bill. Cer- tainly, we all want to preserve giant sequoia. But it is naive to ask nature and a committee to take care of our forests in a socially ac- ceptable manner, after we have attempted to ignore vegetation de- velopment for so long. As written, this bill ignores forest succession, the climate that provides conditions for catastrophic fire, centuries of manipulation by Native Americans, and millennia of forest interactions. We must indeed preserve giant sequoia ecosystem dynamics, and these we must learn from the forest itself. This bill's provisions ab- dicating management and ignoring what we are learning from ecosystems, while we increase dependence on forests elsewhere, is foolishness in the extreme. No matter what we decide here or else- where, nature's inexorable forces will continue, and humans will continue to be dependent on forests. I thank you for the opportunity to address you this way. 72 [The prepared statement of Mr. Gasser appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Gasser. Did all of the other members of the panel get a change to speak? Mr. Christenson. More or less. I submitted my statement. I would be willing to answer any questions. Mr. Brown. All right. Mr. Christenson. I guess the main point is that I have seen a lot of damage, especially to streams, throughout the sequoia forests and Sierra forest as well. The other point is that in some of my efforts to work with Forest Service people, I have run into resistance to fish and wildlife pro- tection. I have respect for them, but sometimes their administra- tion, and so on, causes some conflicts between their views and mine. Mr. Brown. Let me say, as the author of the bill, that we cer- tainly did not assume that we had the wisdom to prescribe a forest management for the sequoias or for either of the national forests up there. What we thought we were doing was first to build on the medi- ated agreement, and require that that be continued until a plan could be developed on a permanent basis, and that that plan be de- veloped upon the advice and recommendations of the Scientific Ad- visory Committee. Now, am I inherently off-base in assuming that that is the prop- er way to go about getting the proper management of the forest? Any of you can respond to that. Disregard the fact that it does make some other changes, like phasing out grazing after 10 years, which is not that big a deal, and we can negotiate that, if it is nec- essary to do so. There are a few prescriptive things like that. But as far as the regeneration of the forest itself, we build upon the best that we know. Now, where do I go wrong here? Mr. Gasser. I think it depends on the scientists you are going to speak to. As Dr. Rundel pointed out, it is a very djniamic set of ecosystems, and it changes from one spot to another. So we need on-the-site managers who can make decisions. And I have a problem with a group, sitting in a room, deciding the future of a piece of land, because we have to be studying what the land is telling us. Mr. Christenson. Another comment is, if you do propose to make changes in a management or what you are going to do to an ecosystem, I think it is much better to consider all aspects of it be- fore you start, rather than proposing something, and then finding out what mistakes you made. We don't have room for many more mistakes. Mr. Brown. I'm glad to see that you recognize we have been making some mistakes. Mr. Rundel. I think the only point to consider is that the sci- entific community would be the first to agree, we don't have all the answers yet. But we've learned a tremendous new amount in the last few decades. But we are continuing to expand. And I think contrary to some of the comments made earlier today, I think having a scientific panel with some accountability in- 73 volved gives more flexibility for management, gives more opportu- nities to incorporate new information than the present system, which has obvious failings to it. Mr. KONDOLF. I also think there is a lot that could be gained from having a scientific panel, and I hope that panel will rec- ommend that the watershed issues are addressed and through re- producible scientific measurement, instead of what is essentially a voodoo approach that has been undertaken up to now. Mr. Brown. Well, to the degree that the bill is prescriptive, it does specify that the Scientific Advisory Committee have the exper- tise that you are describing. Mr. Dooley. Mr. Dooley. Yes, I would just touch on this again. And you all are, I think, very accomplished experts in the general field we are talking about. Ajid I would come back to one of the prescriptions, again, which is elimination of all logging. And I would be interested in all of your comments on this. There is a science there that says that appropriate management of the forests utilizing some for timber harvests is mutually exclusive to the preservation of the sequoia redwood trees. I mean, are those scientifically incompatible, and is there the science available now that can justify the passage of legislation that says we can have no harvest in these 442,000 acres? Dr. Rundel. Mr. Rundel. I think part of the concern with the logging is the methods that have gone on. I think selective logging, for manage- ment purposes — ^you've already heard there is an agreement now of no trees over 30 centimeters to be cut in the future, in any case. Mr. Brown. Inches, wasn't it? Mr. Rundel. Yes, inches. I'm sorry, inches, yes. Small amounts of management effects in the groves are not going to hurt them. If we start doing major manipulations, with old-style mechanical manipulation, that is going to cause major road- building, and that kind of associated environmental damage, I think that is where the concern lies. It's not with selective logging of individual trees by horse or by other less intensive activities. Mr. Kondolf. Hydrologically, one of the biggest problems is the road network. That is the single biggest problem in producing in- creased run-off and sedimentation. And the road network is there for logging. I mean, it's also used for recreation, but it was put in for logging. You know, the vast majority of the roads are main- tained for that purpose. So if we are to manage the area more for recreational and other values, there can probably be far fewer roads and some of the exist- ing roads could be taken out and repaired. Mr. Dooley. Again, the question being, is there the science out there? I mean, if we are trying to predicate our legislation basically on science, is the science there to say that we have to eliminate all harvesting of lumber on the Sequoia National Forest in order to preserve the sequoia redwood trees in their groves? Mr. Kondolf. I'll pass that question on to the redwood special- ists. Mr. Dooley. Mr. Christenson. Mr. Christenson. Again, I can't talk about the redwoods, specifi- cally. But as some of my associates, biologists, say, if you want to 74 do the best thing for wildlife, fish and wildlife, you leave the eco- system alone, and it will take care of them. Whenever you start messing around with it, then you have to either mitigate for prob- lems or do damage. Mr. DOOLEY. Is that consistent with Mr. Gasser's photos of some of the forests that were burned in 1875 and some of the manage- ment techniques that were utilized there? Which one of those for- ests or particular areas have greater wildlife activity? Mr. Christenson. I am not that familiar with both of those. But in general, if you have a natural system operating, it is going to do the best thing for the assemblage of wildlife that you have there. If you change things you are going to change the wildlife population that depend on all that. Mr. DoOLEY. Mr. Gasser. Mr. Gasser. A natural system includes fire. We have had 80 years of fire exclusion. We can not manage the groves and hope to preserve them without using logging. We can do a lot with fire. We need to come back through and prescribe bum again and again, but what are you going to do with trees that are 3, 4, and 5 feet in diameter that have been killed by fire, yet remain as standing and fallen dead fuel? To me, the answer is clear. I think we've got logging techniques that are far better than what we have been using. But we have to take care of ourselves. We're part of the ecosystem, too. I don't think we can ignore that. Mr. DooLEY. When we saw some photos earlier, by an earlier panel, that was showing some of the management practices, and some of them looked deplorable, where they have gone into some and left some standing redwoods there. We also have some pic- tures— well, I've seen the area before and after, and I'm not real pleased when I see it. By the same token, though, those four stand where some of those redwood trees were also interspersed extensively with your white woods and your white conifers. My question is, are not the redwood groves that have this exten- sive white fir growth at real jeopardy if we have a wildfire, which is inevitably going to break out? How many of the sequoias are going to survive that type of situation, under a limited manage- ment regime? Mr. RuNDEL. I think I can speak to that in one sense. There is really interesting, long-term tree ring records now that show fire history. We have a 2,000-year fire history for the Sierra Nevada. We know that the present fire regime has changed dramatically. We have had periods with much more frequent fires. We have had periods with really infrequent fires. And there have been periods in the past in sequoia history, going back centuries, when there probably were more fuels committed naturally than are occurring today artificially. Yes, there would be mortality of individual trees, and perhaps some large ones, but the species has had 15 million years to adapt to that kind of fire cycle. It may be less socially acceptable for very large fires, but I think giant sequoias actually do best under those more intense fires. 75 The major amount of dense stands of trees we see today in the groves are all a result of what we would have called catastrophic fires in past years. Very few fires have a frequency of once a cen- tury or once every two centuries. Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Gasser, do you want to comment on the rel- ative— the conditions, if we go into a status quo-type of situation, where we have some of our forest, our sequoia groves, that have had the regeneration primarily of white firs, and are in a shaded area now, and anyone that has gone out into some of the existing groves have seen the growth in the white fir? There are no sequoia redwoods that are being regenerated under that condition. Mr. Gasser. And so we certainly need to bum, but I'm concerned about the stand — destroying fire. I agree with Mr. Rundel that we are going to get giant sequoia reproduction in that case. But we are also going to lose thousands of acres, displace probably a lot of people, and do some serious damage, I would expect, to the ecosystem in terms of erosion, on a short-term basis. We are a pretty short-term blip here, I think. And to look at the management that has gone on and to call it nothing but bad, is pretty short term. Come back in 50 years, if you can. Mr. Brown. I'll be back. Mr. Gasser. I think what we will see is that this dynamic situa- tion rebuilds itself. Mr. Brown. I was planning on only coming back every 20 years, but I will make it every 50 years now. I wanted, for my own edification, to understand the threats to the sequoia, which I understand are not fire, particularly. In fact, they thrive on fire, at least part of the time. It releases seeds and provides for regeneration. The question is, if you allow a dense undercover to develop — white fir or whatever — which is probably not a natural situation, is that threatening to the life of the sequoia, an uncontrolled fire in that kind of a situation, or do the sequoias survive that kind of thing? Mr. Rundel. As I understand your question, sequoias, depending on the size, if you have a fire in a grove with small sapling sequoia, they will be killed by the fire, as will the other white woods in the area. Mr. Brown. The small saplings will? Mr. Rundel. Yes. The large trees are very protected. And cer- tainly large scars, which havo fire openings in them, can provide entry point for fire. So large trees are occasionally killed by fires, particularly where there are large forest fires. Mr. Brown. I understood from some of the earlier testimony that we may have created a situation in which we have provided a lad- der for the fire to move up into the canopies of the sequoias and, hence, threaten them by not logging these under — whatever you call them. Mr. Rundel. I agree with Don that we need manipulation and we need burning in the understory. We can't make it a museum. Mr. Brown. I don't perceive this bill as prohibiting any kind of reasonable management. It is recommended by the Science Advi- sory Committee. We do not proscribe any of these. 76 We just say, we have to have a plan, based upon the best sci- entific recommendations that we have. And, of course, we know that indiscriminate and large-scale logging, whether of the sequoias or not, is likely to damage the sequoias, just by burying the root systems, and from other things of that sort. The other question I have has to do with the problem of windfall. Does the existence of multilayered canopy serve to ameliorate the problem of windfall, to some degree, protecting the sequoia against it, so that there are values to having it there? Or, on the converse, would isolated sequoias be more threatened by removing all the trees around them and leaving them more open to the problems of heavy storm winds, or something of that sort? And we noticed a number of those situations up there in the se- quoias. Mr. RUNDEL. I think it is noncontroversial. It is a matter of phys- ics that an isolated tree is subject to much more wind pressure than a Mr. Brown. I didn't think it was controversial. Mr. RuNDEL. But I think probably, under natural circumstances, and it can be accelerated by human activity. The major threat to large giant sequoias is erosion, because many sequoias grow along Mr. Brown. If you log all around them, and expose the roots, take away the wind protection, I would suggest that you probably are endangering the sequoias. Mr. RuNDEL. Absolutely. Mr. Brown. But sound management should be able to obviate that problem, I would think. I'm not going to go out and do that. Mr. KONDOLF. If I could add another potential threat, which is based actually on Dr. Rundel's work in Sequoia Park, these giant sequoia groves tend to grow in zones of ground water seepage. There may not be enough water coming out of the ground to create a spring, but they are moister areas than the surrounding, much drier, uplands. And that ground water seepage must be fed by a ground water recharge zone, somewhere above, but without a lot of study, we don't know exactly what area is recharging that wet spot. So if you were to log on top of the hill, and if that were the re- charge area for this ground water seepage, by logging and putting in logging roads, you would be causing more water to run off, less water to infiltrate, and therefore you could be affecting that ground water seepage on which these sequoia groves, which could be a mile away, are depending. Mr. Brown. Would you suggest that extensive clearcutting with the necessary roads to provide for the removal would be a factor that might prevent that kind of water accumulation? Mr. KONDOLF. Yes, absolutely. Clearcutting and the roads could reduce the recharge to that ground water, which then emerges and is actually maintaining the groves. Mr. Brown. I saw an awful lot of extensive clearcutting up there. And I presume some bad previous administration did it, and we don't do it anymore. But I was very disturbed by that. We had some big arguments over the ethical and economic value of clearcutting, when we wrote the original Forest Management 77 Act. It allowed clearcutting, but we thought it would be under re- strained circumstances, shall we say. And I'm not at all satisfied that those circumstances have been adequately restrained. Mr. KONDOLF. Well, also, I know that the environmental assess- ments done for these cuts have not evaluated whether they will af- fect ground water recharged to a giant sequoia growth somewhere else. That's just not considered in this. Mr. Brown. I would suspect that you can make some sound eco- nomic arguments from the standpoint of the loggers that it is cheaper, faster, and maybe would even require less roads in the long run to clearcut an area. And then, of course, they all promise to come back and replant it, and it will grow immediately. Yet, the success rate on the replanting seems to be very low, and it seems to be correlated with other factors, such as the steepness of the slope. I'm not at all sure that those factors have been ade- quately considered. Mr. KONDOLF. Well, the success rates are certainly lower in the Sequoia National Forest than in a lot of other places, Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I did have one question. Mr. Brown. I was hoping that I would provoke a question or two. Mr. PoMBO. Yes, you did. To Dr. Rundel, specifically, in this bill, it states consistent with the purpose and provisions of this act, 'Timber cutting shall not be permitted on Federal lands within the preserve, except for sci- entific study, or as consistent with the fire plan as established by the board. Timber cutting for scientific purposes shall in no case exceed one- twentieth of 1 percent of the total preserve acreage in any given year." It goes on to state that, "No timber cutting within 500 yards of sequoia groves is prohibited." Under that scenario, would it be possible in all cases to properly manage this forest? With the current science that you know, 5 ye£irs from now, you will probably give me a different answer. But, I mean, with the science that you know, and with your experience, would that be possible to carry that out? Mr. Rundel. I think the problem we are facing is, I think we are all in agreement, we need to reduce fuels and to restore fire as a natural part of the environment. And for a variety of reasons, it is difficult to bring fire in, initially, with large fuel accumulations. Now, I think where the question becomes or there may be some play is, how best to achieve that goal. If that goal is achieved by major lumbering £ind roadbuilding in these areas, then I think it is totally against the preservation ideas for the sequoias. If there is selective logging biannuals, or if there is some new kind of equip- ment that is not destructive to the roots and the other species in the areas, then that may well be an appropriate management tech- nique. I'm not familiar with those kind of harvesting techniques in enough detail. But I think the intent is that we need to find ways to reduce the fuel load. Fire is going to be part of that. We need some mechani- cal, probably manipulation beyond that. And traditional lumbering is not an appropriate mechanical means. 78 Mr. POMBO. So, basically, what you are saying is that we need the flexibility to apply the best management techniques that we know at this time. Mr. RUNDEL. That can allow for the preservation of the groves. I think that's where the Scientific Advisory Panel can be very valu- able. Mr. PoMBO. But even the way this bill is worded currently, they are restricted as to what they can do, even if the Scientific Advi- sory Panel agrees that you need more to cut. But according to this, they are limited to one-twentieth of 1 percent. Mr. RuNDEL. I wasn't involved in the drafting in that number, so I don't know exactly where that number came from. Mr. POMBO. OK. Mr. Gasser. May I make a comment on that? We are currently doing thinning at Mountain Home State Forest in pure giant se- quoia, with the goal to try to restore the stands to the ancient for- est character. We are only 5 years into that study, and so we are not far enough along, except to say that we are getting the reduction in fuels. We are starting to get the response in the trees, because we know that they will grow faster, and we are starting to see that. And we have seen no failure in root system in that short a period of time. To date, though, we haven't been able to do any of these studies on national forest lands. Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Brown. Getting back to those two forests that you gave us examples of, Mr. Gasser, one that had been manipulated, and one that hadn't, it appeared from the pictures of the forest that had been manipulated that it was producing fewer trees, but better, larger trees and so forth. Do you have any figures as to net wood growth under the two different circumstances — the mass of the wood that is being pro- duced there? Has somebody calculated that? Mr. Gasser. We find on the unmanipulated stands, our growth is between 100 and 300 board feet per acre, per year. On those where we have been manipulating, we're getting between 500 and 800 board feet per acre, per year. Mr. Brown. Substantially better. Mr. Gasser. Yes, substantially better. And those studies on Mountain Home State Forest are still too young in the response cycle to see what we are going to get. We do have control plots and thin plots, though, so a comparison will be possible as the stand develops. Mr. Brown. I don't have any further questions. But I have been tremendously enlightened by many of the comments here, and par- ticularly the statements by various people that prescriptive legisla- tion is not the best kind of legislation to write. From my standpoint, I'm perfectly open to some kind of addi- tional logging in the preserve, assuming that it is set up. But the logging, again, should be based upon the recommendations of the scientific panel, both as to the extent and the way in which it is conducted. Under the proper circumstances, I can conceive of that being beneficial or an asset to the management of the preserve. 79 Are there any further questions? [No response.] Mr. Brown. If not, we can excuse this panel, which is appro- priate, since we are called away to a vote. Can someone inform me as to whether we have additional wit- nesses to be called? We have one more panel? Then may I encour- age the members to return if they possibly can, so that we can com- plete the additional panel. [Recess taken.] Mr. Brown. The meeting will resume its sitting. First of all, I think I should, on behalf of the chairman, express our collective apologies to this panel for their long and patient wait to enter their contribution to the record here. I do apologize to you. To some degree, these delays are uncontrollable, depending upon votes in the House and other situations. We are just not as efficient as we ought to be, and we urge you to forgive us for our failings. I also want to express my thanks to my other two colleagues who enabled us to continue with a bipartisan hearing. In fact, I will make this additional comment that I will have to leave shortly. I'm going to ask Mr. Dooley to take over, who has exactly the op- posite viewpoint as I do on this bill, so that you will understand that we try to be fair and unbiased as we complete the best pos- sible record to enable all of the members to decide what is the best way to go on this. Can we vote now? [Laughter.] Well, we may consider that. The next panel is panel 4. Mr. Jeff Lilley, Mr. Frank Schlitz, Mr. Larry Duysen and Mr. Jack Shannon, California Cattlemen. Mr. Shannon. Primarily, a permittee on the affected area. Mr. Brown. Did I ever tell you that my brother-in-law used to be the president of the California Cattlemen? Mr. Shannon. No. Who is that? Mr. Brown. Joe Idaho, down in Imperial County. Mr. Shannon. Yes. Mr. Brown. That was before he retired, of course. Mr. Shannon. That's not allowed, before my time. [Laughter.] Mr. Brown. All right. We will proceed in the order in which I called your names. iQain, I thank you for your patience. You may be assured that your fuU statement will appear in the record, and that your contribution will be fairly scrutinized by all the members of the committee. Cio ahead. STATEMENT OF JEFF LILLEY ON BEHALF OF HUME LAKE CHRISTIAN CAMPS Mr. Lilley. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I represent Hume Lake Christian Camps. It is one of the largest youth camps in America. It works with kids, predominantly. It works with a lot of other groups, in addition to that, from family camps to couples, senior citizens, a lot of different groups. I am also here on behalf of a lot of smaller camps who could not necessarily afford to come back — Pyles Boys Camp, Bear Skin Meadow Diabetic Camp, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts of America — a lot 80 of different groups who have both private property in-holdings, as well as special use permits within the affected area. We heard a lot today, and it has been educational for me. I have enjoyed it. But one of the terms that keeps coming up is a response to recreation and how this will be affected in areas of recreation. That is who I am speaking for, not just those inside the forest who have some type of holding in the forest, but also in relation to the International Mountain Biking Association and four wheel drive clubs. A lot of different recreational groups that use the Se- quoia National Forest have been in contact with me when they heard I was coming back, and said, "Could you please keep us in mind as well?" So I speak on behalf of a lot of recreationalists. The comments today have been that there is anywhere from 6 to 10 times as much impact on the forest from recreationalists as tim- ber, so hopefully, our feelings have some weight. What happens with the Sequoia National Forest, as it was men- tioned earlier, there are so many more users of the forest than there are the park. In fact, in Yosemite, you have less than — if you take Yosemite National Park and Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park and you combine them, you have more visitors to Sequoia Na- tional Forest than you do those two parks, combined. That's 8.75 million visitors. Those are recreationalists who use the park. If you take an area like Yosemite, we have problems with Yosem- ite. And, hopefully, you will be addressing that in the future. Be- cause Yosemite has a narrow valley, and you are packing in mil- lions, about 4 million people, into that narrow valley every year. It is destroying that valley. And you, I understand, will be addressing that. In this situation, we have 8.75 million. Now, that would sound a little scary at first, except that the Forest Service practices what is called dispersed recreation, where they allow you to get out into the forest in a lot of different directions. And because of that, you can have 8.75 million. I do it all the time. I can get out there, and the majority of the time, I will never see another soul. Yet, there is 8.75 million, over a year's time, because of dispersed recreation. To clarify what that means, there are a lot of fire roads that you can take. And those fire roads are logging roads, roads that have been put in. That is what dispersed recreation is. It allows those people to disperse over a large area. And I enjoy that, and a lot of the people that I am speaking on behalf of enjoy that. In addition to that, we have a situation where Congressman Ravenel made a statement about his son, William, being handi- capped. That is exactly what I would like to address. It is those t3q)e of statements that we speak on behalf of My wife has congenital hip dysplasia. Her leg is a little higher on her hip than it is supposed to be. She can walk fine, but she can not walk long distances. I, on the other hand, can get around. In fact, just this last sum- mer, I crossed the Sierras in a day. I have a great time out there, both with parks, wilderness areas, and forests. I love it all. My wife does not get to see that, unless she gets a chance to go back on one of these logging roads, and she can see the back coun- try. I can put her on the back of my motorcycle and go back there. 81 That is what the majority of America is looking for. They are look- ing for an opportunity to see this. In fact, it is odd for me to sit opposite environmentalists on this panel, because I work for Hume. We do environmental education, outdoor recreation, and we teach this type of thing. One of the things we can do is, we can get out there and see vast areas, be- cause of the type of management the Forest Service uses. They practice multiple use. It has been said today, they make mistakes. Yes, me, too. I mean, mistakes are there. And it seems like we need to address the mistakes that have been made, and most of those have been in the past. I think we are looking at an administration that would like to correct those mistakes. At this point with those type of things, we begin to see that there is a situation with the trees; a question of whether they are threat- ened or whether they are not; whether it is fire or whether it is disease; whether it is too much logging, or sustained yield. And I think there needs to be a lot more homework before we make a decision about this kind of a bill. We need to go back and fmd out, what is the truth behind all of this. There has been a lot of things said today; a lot of numbers I will never remember. And at that point, if these trees are threatened, then I am going to stand up, like many others, and say, "Come on, let's stop this. This needs to be stopped." But I don't believe these trees are being cut down. And the situa- tions where we even have the isolated trees are in very few groves, and that again is past management. It is not done that way now. And that is the situation that needs to be addressed. If these trees are threatened, all right, let's do something about it. But they are not threatened. And in this case, what we have is road closures, we have the limiting of development. We are limiting activities. We are returning everj^hing to a natural state. Those kind of things come up again and again in the bill — the fact of re- turning to a natural state. Those people who have camps — ^which is kids, it is diabetics, who do not get an opportunity to get into the woods, especially in na- tional parks, wilderness, and preserve areas of parks — ^you do not get an opportunity to use it. In a national forest you can, and we appreciate the fact that we have that opportunity. We also take objection to the nine member panel. If recreation is 6 to 10 times more important, why isn't there somebody rep- resenting recreation on that panel? There is no one there. There are eight scientists, and the ninth member is actually someone from a common field that is concerned with the environment. That sounds like an environmentalist to me. I am an environmentalist, but I am also a recreationalist. I would like to be considered to be part of that kind of panel. Have recreation have a big voice on that, including those who use it in a lot of different ways, and including those who manage it through resources like timber, like grazing, those kind of people as well. And in conclusion, I would say that we are also threatened by fire. The scientists go through the situations there. They talk about fire. 82 I do not believe that anybody has had a lot of success in control- ling fire. We try our best to control it, but you never know. Fire doesn't necessarily stop right on our boundaries. If it did, we would appreciate that. But if there is a fire out there, it is going to affect us. In addition to that, there is this statement about water rights, and water rights will be OK for the State of California. There is no mention of private property or special use permits in this bill. We take exception to that. Finally, it is simply ecosystem management. The Chief of the Forest Service mentions it. The Sierra Club just had it as their cover story, 21 ecoregions, the largest ecoregion management. This bill proposes to take a small area of the Sierra Nevadas and micromanage it. That is a mistake. Everyone that has spoken today says, we need to manage it as an ecoregion, a large area. Ahd there are a lot of things that have been kind of back tracked on this bill, a lot of suggested amendments, things like that. I real- ly think that there is so much wrong with this bill that we need to reconsider it, and maybe consider a different type of bill. The sequoias, I believe, are protected. They are not threatened. We have time to reconsider on this, and I would strongly suggest that. It is a little upsetting to us, when we work in a small camp, we do not have large budgets. But what we do have is, we have a situ- ation here where just the plane fare for my boss and I to come out here and testify used 26 scholarships for inner city kids, who nor- mally would be changed by this kind of an area. You lose that type of an opportunity. We are talking "real" for us. We would like to sit here and debate what is good and bad for the forest, and we would like to be a part of that in the future. But at the same time, we would like to do it on a bill that is concise and speaks directly to a lot of issues, and considers things like recreation. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lilley appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Lilley. That was extremely good tes- timony. For myself, as the author of the bill, I would be prepared to accept a number of your recommendations, except for canceling the bill, of course. [Laughter.] We will see if we can't improve it a little. Next, Mr. Schlitz. STATEMENT OF FRANK J. SCHLITZ, CONTRACTOR, TULARE COUNTY, CA Mr. Schlitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee mem- bers, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Frank Schlitz, a contractor serving the southeastern part of Tulare County, California. I have lived and worked in the Se- quoia National Forest area for 45 years. It is my intention to some- day retire in the Camp Nelson area which, by the way, is entirely within the proposed preserve. I am a member and past president of the Upper Tule Association. The Upper Tule Association represents nearly 500 property owners in the Tule River drainage of the Sequoia National Forest. There 83 are approximately 1,150 pieces of private property owned in this area, and they are all surrounded by the proposed preserve. I am also a member of the People for the West, a grassroots cam- paign in support of western communities. This rapidly expanding national organization is committed to the support of multiple use of the public lands. I have a proclamation in opposition to H.R. 2153 to enter into the record, signed by Diana Taylor, president of the Tulare chapter of the People for the West, the largest chapter in California. I also have a letter of opposition that I would like to enter into the record, signed by Marvin Stonesifer, the current president of the Upper Tule Association. Both of these groups are greatly concerned with this bill as to the vagueness of it and the lack of the response to the recreation and the inholders rights. They feel that with the eight scientific and one lay person on the board, who is going to look after the inholders interest, and who is going to look after the recreational interests within this proposed preserve? Will the communities that use surface water be able to continue doing so, or will these water sources be taken to fulfill the purpose of this act? Camp Nelson Water Company users could be without a water supply if their source is lost to this bill. Will the mountain homeowners be left without water? How will the board treat the many existing special use permits for roads, driveways, waterlines, powerlines, and cabins? And also, on the fire dangers, with the memories of the Southern California fires this past season still fresh in our minds, as a land- owner in the Sequoia National Forest, I have great concerns that the elimination of the fire control activities in the proposed pre- serve would greatly endanger my property, and possibly my life. Keeping the Sequoia National Forest as a multiple-use forest would continue its use as a great place that could be enjoyed by many families to have a family picnic, to camp, to ride horses, to hunt, to fish. The proposed legislation would change all that. No motorized use of trails would be allowed with the preserve. In the Sequoia Na- tional Forest, this would eliminate 108 miles of motorcycle trails, 8 miles of four-wheel drive trails, and approximately 50 percent of the snowmobiling area, as we know it today. These restrictions could be a tremendous blow to the local resorts who rely greatly on the tourist and recreational dollars for their survival. H.R. 2153 could be devastating to me, personally. This bill could cost me as much as 50 percent of my business. This bill could also cost me more money as a taxpayer, as it would undoubtedly cost the Federal Government many millions of dollars to manage this 442,000 acres as a preserve, rather than a productive multiple-use forest. After watching this forest for the past 45 years, and reading H.R. 2153, I wonder what this bill would do to enhance the beauty and the health of the forest. With the vagueness and the unknowns of the scientific ideas of the advisory boards, will it produce an eco- system like the magnificent forest we know today? 84 In my mind, I don't believe this bill would improve on the on- the-ground management over what is being done today. And I often ask, why must we reinvent the wheel? I thank you again for letting me appear before the subcommittee today. I hope we can work something out with this bill. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schlitz appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. DOOLEY [assuming chair]. Thank you, Mr. Schlitz. We will now hear from Mr. Larry Duysen. STATEMENT OF LARRY DUYSEN, LOGGING SUPERINTENDENT, SIERRA FOREST PRODUCTS Mr. Duysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Larry Duysen, a licensed professional forester in the State of California, and the logging superintendent for Sierra Forest Products of Terra Bella, C^ifomia. I am a member of the Society of American Foresters and also the California Licensed Foresters Association. In addition, I am the outgoing president of the Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference, representing members of the logging industry in southern Oregon, the entire State of California, and Nevada. My testimony today represents Sierra Forest Products, and my 19 years experience as a professional forester in the southern Sier- ras. I might comment that in the interest of time, my testimony contains information about forest health, other forestry matters and catastrophic fire dangers. I have elected to just speak at this time to my participation in the mediated agreement, and also some specific areas of interest with Sierra Forest Products. I feel the giant sequoia preservation bill is lacking in many areas. It proposes to remove 442,000 acres of land within the Se- quoia National Forest to create our Nation's first forest preserve. The rationale behind this concept is to protect approximately 15,000 acres of giant sequoia groves. You have heard over and over today, these groves are already protected by Forest Service regulations. Presidential proclamation, and the 1990 mediated settlement agreement of the Sequoia Na- tional Forest land management plan. When the land management plan was adopted in February of 1988, numerous parties appealed the decision, challenging both the plan and/or the EIS. These groups consisted of national and local environmental groups, the timber industry, the State of California, the cattle industry, and various recreational and user groups. The forest supervisor at that time made the wise decision to try to use mediation as a tool in an attempt to resolve the many con- flicting viewpoints. It seemed at that time, it was mediation or liti- gation, and mediation seemed the wise way to go. I think it has really proven to be that way. Between March of 1989 and June of 1990, the parties spent many days in face-to-face discussion and negotiations. Having per- sonally participated in the mediation, I can attest to the long hours, the dedication, and the perseverance of all those involved. The result of this time and effort was an agreement signed in July of 1990 by representatives of 18 organizations. I have submit- ted a copy of this mediated agreement. 85 Many agreements were made in regards to resource allocation and land management policy. Some of these included and include: Protection for the giant sequoia groves, protection for riparian areas, a reduction in the land base for timber production, a reduced harvest level, and a 75 percent reduction in the practice of clearcutting. Realizing that there will always be conflicting views and view- points in regards to managing the natural resources of Federal lands, I feel that through the efforts of the mediation group, a true balance has been found. This agreement should be allowed to pro- ceed, and not to be destroyed by this bill. The outcome of the mediation has inspired other groups in Cali- fornia and Oregon to try to reach a consensus in their local areas. This is also the concept of consensus building that President Clin- ton urged at the Timber Summit last year in Portland. Sierra Forest Products, since its beginning in 1968, has been an important component of the economy in southeast Tulare County. We presently employ about 160 people on a year-round basis, and provide employment for an additional 125 people during the log- ging season. Our mill is privately owned, our only operation, and one of the most efficient in California. In 1992, our payroll, employee medical insurance. Federal taxes withheld from employees, and payments to logging contractors to- taled over $13 million. Forest Service data shows employment-re- lated income for the forest products industry from the Sequoia Na- tional Forest to be at least $33 million annually in Tulare County. As some of you know, the economy of Tulare County is largely based on agriculture. Presently, it has an experience in unemploy- ment rate of around 17 percent. Our company not only provides critical employment, but it is one of the few industries that provides the potential for entry-level per- sonnel to advance to higher positions. Most of our skilled personnel and many of our management level employees have progressed from entry-level to their present positions. In addition, the majority of our employees are minorities. We provide a unique opportunity for employment for many of these people that is not often found in the San Joaquin Valley. Sierra Forest Products, like all mills on the west coast, has expe- rienced the consequences of the artificial shortage of timber being removed from the national forests. Historically, we have been de- pendent on the national forests for about 95 percent of our timber supply. When our mill was built, there were three other mills in the area. We are now the sole survivor. The Sequoia National Forest annually grows around 135 million board feet of timber. We have seen the harvest levels reduced over the years from about 100 million board feet to a predicted harvest of 26 million feet this year. Last year, we were forced to reduce our production from a two shift operation to a one shift operation, which resulted in a lay-off of 60 people. This may sound fairly insignificant in Washington, DC, but believe me, it was traumatic to the families involved. I be- lieve that one of the most difficult times in my career has been ex- periencing the loss to these people and their families. 86 The demand for wood products is increasing throughout the United States. This demand is not going to change. The tremen- dous increase in lumber prices and the additional cost in home con- struction this Nation has experienced in the last 2 years is only a| drop in the bucket. If the national forests, which contain some of the most productive and well-managed timberlands in the world, are not available, other areas in the world will be. We are presently importing radiata pine logs by ship from New Zealand, in an effort to keep our company alive. The fact that we are forced to go overseas, while not effectively managing our own forests, really disturbs me. If this bill passes, we will be legislated out of business. But, more importantly, the Sequoia National Forest will be legislated out of business as effective natural resource managers. The Sierra Nevada ecosystem study is currently underway, in- volving extensive scientific research throughout the entire range. This study was authorized in the 1993 Appropriations Act, with a cost of $7 million over the next 2^2 years. This bill proposes to remove 442,000 acres without the benefit of this scientific study. There should be no land withdrawals on any of the national forests until this study is completed, and the results are subjected to scientific peer review. The basis of this bill, the giant sequoia preservation bill, lacks quantitative scientific review, economic review, and a lack of per- spective into its social impacts. I truly believe that a balance can be found in all natural resource management decisions. The mediated agreement is a balance, a very good balance, for the Sequoia National Forest. This agreement ensures that through multiple use, all users and the resources are protected. We just need to give it a chance. [The prepared statement of Mr. Duysen appears at the conclu- sion of the hearing.] Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Duysen. Now, Mr. Jack Shannon. STATEMENT OF JACK SHANNON, VICE PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN Mr. Shannon. I promised Larry I would let him go before me. Chairman Dooley, Mr. Pombo — I was wondering whether any- body was going to stay or not. I am really sorry Mr. Brown did not. An5nvay, as a little background on my family, my dad's relatives ended in the Porterville area, coming out of the South after the Civil War. They settled in Porterville in 1868. My dad was born in 1890. We were fairly stable. My house is about a half a mile away from where his is, where I was bom, and the house is still stand- ing. But the property has since been sold and they planted a grove. My mother's family came into Utah in 1848. He ran covered wag- ons across there for supplies for Mormons, for what they could not come up with on their own out there, from the parties traveling through. I am also here on behalf of 32 other grazing permittees on the Sequoia National Forest, representing about 6,000 head of cattle. Most of the cattle are mother cows. They are really concerned about what this committee is going to do, because if they do not 87 have any grass, they will have to be slaughtered, and it would seem a shame for this committee to be part of the problem of slaughtering 6,000 pregnant cows. We have a grazing permit, as I said. I was selected to be here by some of my peers, seeing as how I am fortunate enough to have a grazing permit that has the largest stand of sequoia redwood trees in the national forest in my permit. I also have the only endangered species on the Sequoia National Forest, that is in my permit, which is the little current golden trout. So we kind of get it from both sides there. I really can't see any difference. I have probably been in the area more than anybody that has been alive over the last 50 years or so, and poked around here and there. There is about 150,000 of the 440,000 acres that I am either somewhat familiar with; and of that, there is probably 100,000 that I am extremely familiar with. I really cannot see that many changes, except we have more de- bris building up. I neglected to mention, I also run in the wilder- ness. I've got all your goodies. The debris, the logs, the dead brush, the tall green brush, the magnificent fire hazards, have increased dramatically in the last 50 years. You used to be able to ride wherever you wanted to go. The only thing that is going to clear it up is either logging or fire. I don't think you are going to have any fires set on purpose in the southern Sierra, Nevada region. I was involved with the State board of forestry for a year. I was primarily responsible for complete revamping of the veg-manage- ment program for the State of California. They were trying to bum 120,000 acres, £Lnd then we dropped it to 90,000, and we dropped it to 67,000. Statewide, they have been burning in the 40,000's. Part of the problem is the Air Quality Control Board and APA, and you will not see any large scale burning in southern Sierra Ne- vada or Southern California in the foreseeable future. On the redwoods. Mountain Home States Forest is managed by the California Board of Forestry. It is considered to be the jewel of the State forest system. It is a totally managed grove, and before the committee or anyone made any decisions, I would strongly sug- gest they go find out what the State of California is doing there. They are harvesting some of the sequoias. They are leaving re- cruitment trees for the large ones. They are opening it up. They are getting a lot of free growth, very extensive management. California has 101-some million acres. A little over 1 million acres of that is water. You have 49 million acres of public Izind. Of that public land, you have 12 million acres of wilderness and parks in California, which is 12 percent of the total. You have another 3.5 million acres, Department of Defense. The State of California has about 2 million acres. So you've got about 16 percent of California now that is off limits. That area is larger than most of the States out here. If you look at the old writings of the pioneers, the mountain men, even John Muir, they talk about open savannahs, scattered trees, tall grass. I think that we are tgdking about ancient forest and this type of thing, and we are seeing something that is not natural be- fore white man came, because the California Department of For- 88 estry was established as a fire control unit in 1884, 1 believe it was. We have been putting out fires in California ever since. My personal opinion is, we screwed up when we put the first fire out, or you would not have the fire hazards and things you have now. One other thing I happen to be staying over at the Henley Park Hotel. It's the same age as when our cattle drive started back there, 75 years ago. I neglected to mention that the permit has been in our hands, and this is the 76th year. Anjrway, Henley Park is now an Historic Hotel of America, sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon appears at the conclu- sion of the hearing.] Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Shannon. I thank all the panelists for their participation today, and also for their diligence in sitting through this and being the last panel. I can assure you that even though Mr. Brown wasn't in attend- ance for part of the comments here of the last panel, he will have access to the written testimony. I am sure that his staff will make him aware of some of the comments that were made. What I would be interested in, Mr. Duysen, your company was a participant in the mediated settlement process? Mr. Duysen. That is correct. Mr. DoOLEY. And we have had some discussion earlier today on whether or not that was an interim agreement, how long it was in- tended to be in effect. As an actual participant in the process, what w£is your general impression? I mean, what were you talking about when you were hammering out these agreements? What was the timeframe, were they to be part of the management plan, were they to be in effect until a fu- ture management plan was developed? What was your perception? Mr. Duysen. I am quite certain in my mind that the intent was that the mediated agreement would last the entire planning period, a period of 10 to 15 years. And I believe that's in writing in the agreement. Mr. DoOLEY. Another question is, where we did have some of the findings of the CASPO Study that was released subsequently, was there discussion during the mediated settlement agreement on how those types of issues would be overlaid, and how they would be ac- commodated, or was this something that was just basically left that the Forest Service would address? Mr. Duysen. I guess the way I see that is, that's a very good question. When we signed the mediated agreement, it was my as- sumption that this agreement would go forward. Everyone realized that nothing stays static. And within several weeks, there was the stormy fire complex, a whole new issue. And now we have CASPO and, undoubtedly, there will be other issues out in front of us. But that still does not mean that the in- tent and the verbiage of the mediated agreement should not go through, as far as protections go. The mediated agreement talked about an allowable harvest of 75 million board feet a year. With CASPO, that is greatly reduced this 89 year. It looks like probably 26 million is a more realistic number. I accept that as part of the ongoing process here. But on the other hand, I would expect that the mediated agree- ment, that language would still go forward as far as the protections that were afforded for the giant sequoias for the riparian areas and some of those issues. Mr. DOOLEY. In terms of your experience with this process, and your relationship with other groups that are involved in a similar process, if you replaced — let's say that this legislation doesn't move forward. Is there going to be a need, really, to try to reengage the parties, again, to address some of the changing issues, or how would you see moving forward from this date on? Mr. DUYSEN. Well, that option is always available, and that is one of the terms of the agreement. At this point, the mediation group meets once a year for an annual meeting, the mechanism is in place to go ahead and do that. That is a question that is a little bit hard to answer, in the fact that if any of the parties feel like they need to address something, that is certainly available and can proceed. Mr. DooLEY. There has been, obviously, some criticism, and cer- tainly the photos create a very graphic depiction that some of the clearcutting is perhaps not a management technique that may be something, for whatever reasons, that public policy is willing to ac- cept. From an industry perspective, is it possible to move forward in a selective management regime that can accommodate CASPO, that can accommodate the issues of the mediated settlement agree- ment, in terms of level of protections and repairing protections, that still can allow for — well, obviously, it will have a sustainable yield — ^but an economic yield that can keep the existing timber in- dustry in business, keep it economically viable? Mr. DuYSEN. You know, as far as our sawmill goes, as you well know, there have been many mill closures, up and down the State of California; three alone in the last 2 weeks. But as far as our particular operation on the Sequoia National Forest, I truly believe that ecosystem management is the tool for the future, and that if it can be applied across the nonwildemess land base, that it cannot only provide a sufficient amount of timber for our sawmill, but also can greatly improve the forest health. I think that to go ahead and call it a preserve or any other num- ber of names where you simply lock it up and forget it, is not really the best way to go in this case. Mr. DoOLEY. At this time, I will recognize Mr. Pombo for ques- tions. Mr. Pombo. Mr. Shannon, you are representing the grazing in- terests in the area. Approximately how many acres are currently under permit for grazing that would be included in the 440-some thousand? Mr. Shannon. Probably about 50,000 acres that are not suitable for grazing, or it is excluded because of home sites. Mr. Pombo. So all but 50,000 acres of it is suitable for grazing? Mr. Shannon. Yes, something like that. That is one number I have not looked at. But there is one band of heavy brush. There is grazing below it and there is grazing above it. 90 Mr. POMBO. Under the current management agreement that was agreed upon and signed by 19 or 18 different groups, were the cattlemen part of that agreement? Mr. Shannon. Yes, we were. Mr. POMBO. Did you get everything you wanted in that agree- ment? Mr. Shannon. It was not what we wanted. It was what we did not have to give up. Mr. PoMBO. But you still abide by the agreement that you signed? Mr. Shannon. Yes. We have some major problems in California on grazing that you may or may not be aware of Anjrway, there has been a lawsuit filed on the Sierra Forest, which is up out of Fresno. And it has the potential to shut down grazing in all of California, if it prevails or if it is traded off wrong, because of the lack of NEPA documentation that has been done by the Forest Service. And probably the reason it has not been done, the Forest Service estimates are $50,000 to $60,000 for the NEPA documentation, per permit — or per log, excuse me. There are 55 permittees on the Se- quoia, and there are 75 or so allotments. I am not sure of the numbers throughout California, but you £ire talking about a lot of money. And the money is not there in the budget to do the NEPA documentation, as required — as has been interpreted by the courts to be required. Mr. PoMBO. Mr. Duysen, you said that you are currently import- ing logs to run through your mill now? Mr. Duysen. That is correct, Congressman. Mr. POMBO. And you can do that economically? Mr. Duysen. The economics are very marginal, at best. But right now, we are attempting to try to keep the doors open and keep our people employed. And, yes, it is very marginal, but it looks like probably one of the few opportunities we are going to have in the near future. Mr. POMBO. And those logs are coming from where? Mr. Duysen. From New Zealand. Mr. POMBO. From New Zealand? Mr. Duysen. Yes, radiata pine, which is basically monterey pine that we see on our west coast; only, through a very unique climate in New Zealand, they are able to grow those trees very fast. Mr. PoMBO. Do they follow the same kind of management tech- niques that we practice in this country? Mr. Duysen. Basically, what they have done in New Zealand is replace a good portion of their native hardwood tropical forest with radiata pine, and it's plantation forestry — a little bit different in its wholescale plantation forestry, a little bit different than what we see in our national forest. Mr. PoMBO. How long do you suspect that you will be able to maintain importing logs and still keep the mill open? Mr. Duysen. Well, at this point, we are still in the experimental stage. I don't think we will ever be able to afford to substitute American logs with foreign logs, 100 percent. I guess time will tell over the next few months, the next 6 months, how well this project is going to work out. But because of 91 the expense, you have to mix those logs in with some other logs to try to keep yourself above water. Mr. PoMBO. Do you agree with a lot of the statements that have been made previously here, in terms of better management tech- niques in using the new science that is available and the new tech- niques that are available, and being able to do that and maintain a business in the area? Mr. DuYSEN. Very much so, as far as harvesting techniques and harvesting equipment. There is definitely the teclmology out there, and it is being used in other places. Aiid it is some of the tech- nology that we are using right now, in particular, logging with heli- copters. A good portion of logging takes place by helicopters. There is no lighter touch to the earth than doing that. I think that is some- tMng that could, as far as giant sequoia management or other sen- sitive areas in the future, could be applied. Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Lilley, you talked mainly about the recreational opportunities that currently exist in the area. Can you give us one or two suggestions of how we could increase rec- reational opportunities in the area, and better utilize the forests for those purposes? Mr. Lilley. Definitely not by this bill. This bill shuts down roads. It says no new development. One of our problems with it is that it states right off the bat that you can not come into an area and increase the recreation. Yet, the bill says that we are going to get so much more in recreation that it is going to be able to replace the revenues from the timber sales. The Forest Service has no fee for people to use the forest. What we see as the proper forest management of a natural resource, is the multiple-use program that the Forest Service currently uses. They say, allow a lot of people to use it; a lot of variety to use it. They have management teams that study that and determine that. The one thing that I would suggest is that we not do it by closing down roads that are already built. They are already established. The road sides are established with vegetation. You are not getting run-off problems; that type of thing. It allows people to get out into the back country that are not normally capable with a 65-pound pack on their back. We did mention this earlier, but Hume Lake sits right on the edge of Kings Canyon. Historically, Hume has not always been there. It exists because when they logged it earlier, Hume Lake was created. They put a dam in, and that dam was built so they could roll the sequoia logs into the lake after they cut them down. That was the turn of the century logging. At Hume Lake, we would like to cordially invite all the Congress- men, and even those not present, to come to Hume, and we would like to show them what happened back then, as well as give them an opportunity to see the groves that are there now. Thank you. Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. I would like to thank all of the panel- ists for their participation today. I also want to specifically recognize both Carla Cloer and Jack Shannon and even include myself here, because I think we are all fourth generation residents of this region. I think we all have 92 fifth — what are you, Jack, holding up your hand? Oh, you wanted | to comment. Go ahead. Mr. Shannon. One thing I neglected to do, I would like to put it in the record that all members of the committee are more than welcome to come out to the ranch for a couple of days, if they want to play cowboy. We have a couple of those every year. If they want to come back to the Forest Service permit, I feel very comfortable with what we are doing, both on our public lands and our private land, down in Tulare County and Sequoia National Forest. That is an open invitation. Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. Jack. Mr. POMBO. If I may just comment on that, if my brothers found out I was down at your ranch pla5dng cowboy, I would be in big trouble. [Laughter.] Mr. SCHLITZ. I've got an Indian reservation right next door. I can arrange for you to go play Indian. [Laughter.] Mr. DoOLEY. We'd better stop. At that, I just want to thank everybody once again. I think what came out here, I think everyone has, I think, the obligation of in- suring that we are going to provide the adequate protection to maintain the sequoia groves, and certainly the sequoia trees. Hopefully, through this process and the information that we re- ceived today, we will gain some guidance on how we can most effec- tively respond to Congressman Brown's very good faith and I think responsible effort to try to at least initiate a discussion on the man- agement of the Sequoias. So, once again, I thank everybody for participating, and thank you, Mr. Pombo. [Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 93 EXTENSION OF REMARKS REP. GEORGE E. BROWN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES MARCH 9, 1994 I am here before this subcommittee to say a few words on behalf of the Giant Secjuoia National Preservation Act which I introduced in May of last year. As I have stated before, my intent in introducing this bill was to ensure that the Giant- Sequoia mixed conifer ecosystem would have permanent protection within a national forest preserve. It is essential that the protection of this ecosystem be insured by law, and not be subject to changes in the interpretation of or the adherence to the National Forest Management Act that might result from a change in Administrations. The Giant Sequoias are not only the world's largest trees, they are a living part of California's environmental history, the earth's oldest living things. Millions of visitors come from within California, and from other areas of the country to walk through the Sequoia and Redwood forests. This ecosystem is a valuable and unique natural resource which will provide many more economic possibilities as a healthy, intact ecosystem than it will as a fragmented landscape with the scars of excessive clearcutting. 80-635 0-94-4 94 The bill calls for scientific research within the preserve, providing a "living laboratory" for use by scientists from the Forest Service emd other organizations. As Chairman of the House Science Committee, I am especially interested in better utilization of science in the development and implementation of land management . Obtaining information on a species as long- lived as the Giant Sequoia represents a unique scientific challenge. I know that there is concern about the loss of jobs that will result from the ban on commercial timber harvesting. I do not like to see the loss of even one job. For this reason, I have made provisions in the bill for eumual payments to local communities and for the estadslishment of job re-training, technical assistamce, omd loans and greuits to help affected communities diversify their economies. I should point out that if we do nothing with this there will be timber job losses. There is evidence that timber removal from the Sequoia National Forest over the past decade has exceeded sustaineible rates. This pattern of overcutting will result in not only loss of jobs in the mills, but in the degradation of a valuable recreational resource. Ironically, allowing the current situation to continue will foreclose future diversification options to research and tourism. I believe that this bill will ultimately protect jobs as well as the forest. Some of my colleagues from Califomian are in opposition to this bill in its current form. They feel that this legislation is imnecessary and that the loss of timber- industiry jobs in their 95 districts would present an undue hardship on their constituents. I hope that once they have heard all of the information presented at the hearing today, that they will work with me to improve any current deficiencies in this bill and join me in support of it. All Americans are affected by current management policies in the Sequoia National Forest even though they do not reside within the districts containing the Sequoia National Forest . The concerns of the many southern Califomians and citizens from the other states in this nation who come to the Sequoia National Forest to enjoy all of the recreational opportunities available within this forest should also be considered. The Forest Service's own records show the recreational value of Sequoia National Forest to be substantially greater than the timber value. In fact we are losing money on the timber program in this forest. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the estimates provided to me by the Congressional Budget Office be entered into the record. Item one indicates that implementation of H.R. 2153 would result in a timber program savings of about $6 million dollars annually. In spite of the greater recreational value, most of the budget for this forest is used to support clearcutting of timber. This skewed distribution of resources should be corrected. We should be investing scarce taxpayer dollars in areas where they will produce the greatest benefit for the most people. This bill is a step in that direction. By redirecting the budget of the Sequoia National Forest to greater support and development of the recreational uses of this area, more people can enjoy this unique 96 natural resource. We have been priviledged to be one in the long line of generations that have enjoyed and marveled at the majestic nature of the Giant Sequoia. I introduced the bill to insure that our generation would not be the last one in the line. Thank you very much. (Attachment follows:) 97 Congressional Budget Office U.S. Congress Washington, DC 20515 Robert D. Reischauer Director March 8, 1994 Honorable George E. Brown, Jr. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman: I am pleased to respond to the five questions you asked in your letter of February 24 regarding the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993. 1. Reduction in Timber Program Costs in Affected Forests. In our analysis of the bill, we estimated that once fully implemented. H.R. 2153 would result in ^mbe^roggj^ij^jlg^otalin^Jjgjj^^mniio^^^^wrTlBin^onsi^ with your point that the average annual timber program losses in the affected forests currently total at least $5 million. CBO expects, however, that the bill's provisions would take at least one year fi-om the date of enactment to be fully implemented. Thus, we anticipate that the full impact of such savings would not be realized until fiscal year 1996. 2. Payments to Counties. We agree with you that the payments to coimties fi-om the affected forests currently total about $1 million annually. Our cost estimate reflects a savings of this amount beginning in fiscal year 1995. As with the timber program costs discussed above, we assimied that it would take at least one year after the bill's enactment to fully implement the bill's provisions. Consequently, CBO estimated that the savings from lower payments to counties would be about $500,000 in fiscal year 1994 and aroimd $1 million in each of the subsequent years. In calculating the tax equivalency payments that would be paid to the affected counties in lieu of the payments they would be due under current law, CBO relied on information from your staff, the Forest Service, the California State Board of Equalization, and the local counties. The Board of Equalization provided us with the 1993 Value of Timberland schedule sent to all counties in the state. This schedule established the value per acre for tax purposes of 98 Honorable George E. Brown, Jr. Page 2 various grades of timberland, ranging from redwood to mixed conifer. The Forest Service indicated that the lands in the proposed preserve would be classified chiefly as mixed conifer, resulting in a total land value in the preserve of about $50 million (442,425 acres valued at about $105 per acre). The affected coimties told us that their tax rates were approximately 1 percent Applying this tax rate to the estimated land values yielded an estimated tax equivaJency payment totaling about $500,000. 3. Yield Tax Payments. The federal budget does not record the acquisition or disposition of physical assets as budgetary transactions. Because the yield tax payments made by the federal government are "paid" to the state of California in the form of timber assets, not cash, the value of such "payments" is not recorded in the budget or included in our cost estimate. 4. Fire Management Costs. CBO's cost estimates include all effects on the federal budget that result from the enactment of new legislation, regardless of where such costs are accounted for by the affected agency. The Forest Service interpreted H.R. 2153 to require Uiat any work done within the Giant Sequoia Preserve to clear away underbrush as part of their fire management plan for the area would have to be done without the use of mechanized equipment at greater cost to the agency. As a result, we estimated that fire management costs would increase by about $3 million annually. 5. Timber Contract Buyout Costs. In a letter to CBO dated September 16, 1993, the Forest Service stated that "there are 7 existing timber sales within the proposed boundary [of the preserve]. U we were to buy out these sales, it would cost approximately $8,750,000." The Forest Service interpreted the bill to require that these contracts, covering an estimated 25 million board feet of timber, would have to be cancelled and the contract-holders compensated. CBO included such costs in the estimate for H.R. 2153 because the federal government agrees in the timber contracts to pay for costs already incurred by the purchaser plus damages if the confracts are cancelled. We have recently received more detailed information from the Forest Service, which indicates that only about 11.4 million board feet of timber are currentiy under contract in the affected areas. ^''SUBJCg additional contracts are not ftntftrftd into h^fnrP thif> hill's enactment, huvnut costs are more lilcelv tn he in the range of $4 million to $5 million and would be incurred in the first year after enactment 99 TESTIMONY OF THE HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES March 10, 1994 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the bill, H.R. 2153, the "Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993". This bill would create a 442, 000 -plus acre "Giant Sequoia Preserve" in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. A large part of this newly- created preserve would be located in my congressional district. Let me state from the outset that I am opposed to this legislation, because it is unnecessary. At this time, even without the "protections" afforded by this bill, the only threats to the giant sequoia are entirely natural: fire, wind, insect infestation and old age. The giant sequoia is currently protected by Forest Service regulations, Presidential Proclamation and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement of the Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan. In addition, the enactment of this bill would destroy more jobs in Tulare County and impose a direct cost on the taxpayers . There is no evidence to suggest that these existing protections are in any way inadequate or insufficient. The Mediated Settlement Agreement prohibits not only the logging of giant sequoias themselves, but also prohibits the cutting of any timber within 1000 feet of a giant sequoia. This bill would take over 442,000 acres of land in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and turn it into a "Giant Sequoia Preserve", where no timber cutting would be allowed. Grazing would be phased out in ten years, although there is no indication that livestock operations have had any impact on the giant sequoias. Access, either by motorized or non-motorized means, would also be restricted. Current recreational uses, including camping, hunting, fishing and hiking, would be permitted to continue, but the limitations on access would effectively close off large areas of this preserve that are currently utilized by visitors. The question remains: why? The answer is, unfortunately, not that the current structure for protecting the giant sequoia is inadequate. If that were the case, this Subcommittee would be presented with evidence to support that contention. The support-' ers of this legislation cannot make that argument. Instead, they are relying on their vision of what reality should be and their desire to impose that vision on the rest of society. In order to understand how we got to this hearing room today, we must go back to 1988 when the Land Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest was adopted. The plan was immediately challenged by just about everyone: the timber industry, environmental groups, the State of California, the livestock industry and various recreational groups. Instead of 100 proceeding with their appeals, however, a mediation process was agreed upon and representatives of these numerous interest groups sat down and spent over a year negotiating the Mediated Settlement Agreement that, among other things, protects the giant sequoia. This was not an easy process. In the end, this agreement did not embody the "ideal" plan for any one person or group, but like any good compromise, made everyone involved a little unhappy. Unfortunately, there were some who did not agree with the direction this Mediated Settlement was taking. These disgruntled representatives walked away from the table before the final product was signed. Since they were unable to convince the other participants to adopt the course they advocated, they decided instead to circumvent the process and implement their plan by legislative fiat. This is the bill you have before you. Those who worked on the Mediated Settlement put in long hours discussing, arguing and negotiating agreements that affected the resource allocation and land management policy in the Sequoia National Forest. They signed off on this agreement not because it gave them everything they wanted, but because they understood that the essence of compromise is getting some of what you want by giving something in return. Enacting this legislation would throw their Mediated Settlement into the recycling bin. At the same time, a message would be sent to every group that is interested in resolving their differences through negotiation and compromise, and the message is: Don't bother. Why spend all that time and effort working with others in developing an agreement, when you can go to Congress and have them give you the plan you want . Finally, it is important that you consider the costs involved in implementing this legislation, both in terms of the direct costs to the Treasury and the costs associated with the loss of more jobs in my district. Currently, the counties of Kern, Tulare and Fresno receive payments from timber sales revenues from sales carried out in the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Last year, those payments totaled $1.7 million. Since timber sales in a large portion of the Sequoia Forest would be eliminated, these revenues would disappear. This legislation provides for their replacement through annual appropriations, imposing another burden on the taxpayer, that could be easily avoided by not acting on this legislation and allowing the Forest Service to continue managing the forests and selling timber in a responsible fashion. The job impact, though not necessarily large, is no less important. The timber industry in this area has already faced a difficult time, having fought numerous appeals on nearly every proposed sale of timber. Recently, the Regional Forester implemented an interim management plan for the protection of the California spotted owl that prohibited the cutting of any timber with a diameter of more than 30 inches. This interim plan may be in effect for another year, and the details of the plan that will 101 replace it have not been finalized. Last year, the sole remaining mill in this area, Sierra Forest Products, reduced their production from two shifts to one and laid off 60 people. They currently employ 160 people on a year-round basis and another 125 during the logging season. The forest products industry as a whole contributes around $33 million to the local economy on an annual basis. If H.R. 2153 is enacted, many of these people will lose their jobs, and although the bill provides for "retraining" and "job counseling" for these workers, I think it would be better if we let them keep their jobs for the time being. In closing, I would like to urge you to listen carefully to each of the witnesses that follow. They will give you more examples of what is wrong with this legislation, why it is not necessary and how its enactment will affect them, their families and their businesses. I hope that by the end of the day, you will find yourself in agreement with my assessment that this bill is totally unnecessary and offers no measurable enhancement of protection for the giant sequoias. 102 THE HONORABLE RICHARD H. LEHMAN HEARING ON H.R. 2153 - GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1993 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES MARCH 9, 1994 Mr. Chainnan, Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on a bill that is very relevant to the district I represent My district includes portions of both the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests - the two forests included in the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve created by this bill. I would like to thank the many people who travelled a good distance to testify on this bill and its many effects on their lives. I must begin by stating that this is not a hearing about preserving giant sequoia. We can all agree that giant sequoia are some of the most magnificent biological specimens this earth has to offer and that they should be protected. I have personally supported numerous efforts to protect the giant sequoia. What this hearing is really about is how the nation should manage its national forests. Although there remains a healthy debate over how best to maintain stands of giant sequoia, we know enough to say the methods revolve around uses of mechanical manipulation and controlled fire. In fact, many scientists tell us that establishing a preserve which excludes mechanical manipulation and seeks to eliminate use of controlled fire could severely hinder the ability for giant sequoia to regenerate and thrive. Experience with a variety of management styles - in the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, in the State-managed Mountain Home State Forest, on private lands and on other State-managed forest lands - have aptly 103 demonstrated this contention. I am afraid that some people believe we should stop timber harvesting on our national forest lands - and what better place to begin than forest land that contains the majestic and romantic giant sequoia? H.R. 2153 circumscribes a 442,000 acre zone - only a small portion of which actually contains giant sequoia - inside of which there would be restrictions on a number of multiple uses. Management of this zone would be driven by a scientific advisory board with certain, specific limitations on how best to accomplish that management. What this aspect of the bill denies is that some of the best science about how to manage giant sequoia is ah-eady being applied, to the benefit of giant sequoia stands. Last Oangress, the Natural Resource Committee's General Oversight Subcommittee, which I chaired, held an oversight hearing on management of giant sequoia. Passions ran high and debate was polarized. Based on that hearing, and subsequent readings, symposia and discussions, I came to the conclusion that the giant sequoia are best managed under the most flexible management scheme available. The giant sequoia have not survived these millennia because they lack resilience. The giant sequoia is an extremely hearty species that demands attention but not exclusion. As I mentioned earlier, H.R. 2153 is premised on the belief that our national foreste are best placed in preserves. As an avid hiker and outdoorsman, I will admit this proposition has some narrow appeal - but it is completely unrealistic. To preserve forested areas, this nation creates national parks, wild and scenic rivers and wilderness areas, all of which I have supported in my own district, even when controversial - because it was appropriate. Taking the business of managing these national forests out of the hands of the U.S. Forest Service is also not the answer. I, like many others, have been very critical of the Forest Service over the years. In many ways, 104 the Forest Service has failed its responsibility. However, I am not prepared to end their charter and proclaim them the new stewards of a forest system criss-crossed with preserves. Our forests an be better managed and I think the Forest Service has the potential to restore pubUc faith in itself. I will soon introduce my version of how best to manage California's forests. I believe we shotild advance the notion of ecosystem management to address the needs of forest health, conmiunity stability and environmental protection. The current tree-by-tree, species-by-species management approach cannot be sustained. Ceasing timber harvests altogether puts a terrible burden on our communities. This bill takes all the remaining land and resource base in the south-central Sierra Nevada and makes it ofif-limits to a variety of multiple uses. This is area that was not included in our national parks, of wiiich I have three in my district, or the California Wilderness Act, which passed into law in 1984. We already have millions of acres of wilderness and parks set-aside in the south-central Sierra Nevada. I would close by stressing that the giant sequoia is protected. Standing giant sequoia are protected by no less than three federal mandates, including former President Bush's presidential proclamation of July 14, 1992. Just as importantly, the Mediated Settlement Agreement - a consensus document signed by representatives of envirormiental groups, local timber industry, the Forest Service, California's Attorney General, area Native American tribes, and various multiple-use groups - remains a viable means of managing the forest in the near term. Appropriately, the MSA was a local solution to management of our public resources, an idea which should be replicated nation-wide. The Clinton Administration has advocated local solutions to management disputes - I support this objective and encourage its use in the legislation I am introducing. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before your subcotmnittee. 105 WAOaaartw aixf COMMtTTtt ON SCHNCI. ticT omk:i I4tf) BistTicL, California *^/,??,SS'" Congress of tfte »niteb Stated 'Zi:::."J.'"::^1t:' yiKOMWirrtis TICmmOlOQT. CWVinoNMCNT A NO AVIATION SPACC SCIINCC |415| 323-3914 ajfl)ungtan. fiC 20515-0514 OCCANOCRAFNV ANR THE DIJTSR CUNiiNeNlAL SMCLT NORTMfcMN CALlFOnNI* TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVE ANNA G. ESHOO "f^""*' """ BEFORE THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE'S SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES on HJL 2153, THE CL^NTSEQUOLV PRESERVATION ACT ApriU, 1994 Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to testify with my colleagues on behalf of H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act. This bill not only helps preserve the largest, most majestic trees in the world, it saves American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars by putting an end to below-cost timber sales in Sequoia National Forest. We aie all familiar with giant sequoia trees, which are thousands of years old and can be almost 300 feet tall. But more important than their aesthetic beauty, these giants play a key role in the very fragile ecosystem which is threatened by current Forest Service policies. .According to a 1989 Audubon Society study, there Were only 41,000 acres of thickly wooded, old-growth forest left in the United States. There are even fewer acres now and only ten percent of them are protected in wilderness areas. The Forest Service allowed more than one million board feet of giant sequoia to be removed in 13 timber sales from sequoia groves during the 1980s. The fact is, timber is being cut at more than twice the sustainable rate because forest planners greatly overestimated potential growth rates. Even with the Sequoia National Forest's terrible reforestation success rate, plannen assumed almost all the forest would be reforested with only one planting. As a result, the forest is disappearing faster than nature and people can replace it. Worst of all, taxpayen are subsidizing the destruction of the Giant Sequoia ecosystem. Although limber companies pay the Forest Service an average of S3. 5 miUion per year for the timber harvested in Sequoia National Forest, the Forest Service must spend up to S8.3 million per year to build logging roads and administer the sales. It is estimated that taxpayers have spent S45 million in the last ten years to log the Sequoia National Forest, which only provides one percent of the wood and wood fiber used annually in the U.S. H.R. 2153. of which I am an original cosponsor. would end the wasteful practice of below- cost timber sales and finally protect the remaining groves of Giant Sequoia oy creating a Giant Setquoia National Forest Preserve. It also provides for worker training, counseling and placement, with an emphasis on potential new types of employment in recreation and restoration of the ecosystem. Mr. Chairman, we must act now to preserve these areas for our posterity or risk the tragedy of losing them forever. Thank you again for allowing me to address your subcommittee and thank you for holding this important hearing. rwiS ^»T^O' mortcuit Subcommittee as Chief of the Forest Service. I look forward to developing an effective working relationship to address the issues which concern us. I wamt to share my core values which affect how I approach my new job. I share a land ethic put forward by an early Forest Service en^loyee nauned Aldo Leopold, and I quote, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, steibility, emd 107 2 beauty of the biotic community." This ethic accepts short-term constraints on human treatment of land so as to ensure long-term preservation of the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic connminity. I believe that human activity which is consistent with this ethic is properly within the realm of resource mcinagement options. Activity not .consistent with the long-term preservation of the biotic community should be resisted for all but the most conpelling reasons. I believe my views are consistent with the intent of existing statutes that guide Forest Service activities. I also recognize that people are inseparable from the ecosystems of which they are a part and people's varied needs must be considered and accommodated if there is to be any national consensus about how our forests and range lands are to be treated. An essential characteristic of any orgsmization with a strong land ethic is a commitment to the truth. Forest Service employees. Administration officials, and the Congress will be making hard decisions concerning the policy and mcinagement of the people's forests. The reliability of the information on which these decisions should be based is partly a product of the willingness of administrators to seek out, dememd, ajid listen to the truth- -however disappointing or disconcerting that may be in the short term. 108 3 As Chief, I see my role as fostering am orgamizational climate where diverse vie%^oints are accepted, where bad news can be safely delivered, where honesty is consistently rewarded, and where we all pull together to carry out management decisions that are openly made. Additionally my core values include a commitment to exercise leadership, bring about needed change, and a desire to be judged on results. Actions truly speaik louder than words. To return to the business at hsmd concerning the legislation you are considering today, H.R. 2153 would designate approximately 442,425 acres of federally- owned lands within the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests in California as the Giemt Sequoia National Forest Preserve. The bill would esteiblish a Gicmt Sequoia Scientific Advisory Board and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to: (1) administer the Preserve as a separate unit within the National Forest System; (2) make yearly recommendations, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior amd Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, on other areas to be designated National Forest Preserves; (3) piiblish a conqprehensive memagement plan for the Preserve; cmd (4) make annual "tax equivalency payments" in place of payments in lieu of taixes under 16 U.S.C. 500 to the local government of each political subdivision within the boundaries of which are lands indicated xinder the bill for inclusion in the Preserve. 109 4 H.R. 2153 would further require the Secretary to establish a community assistance task force; permit amy local community in the region that is iitpacted by loss of Federal timber sales, amd any worker who is displaced from a job in the timber industry as a result of enactment of the bill to request assistance from the task force; axid direct the task force to encourage and develop enployment opportunities in forest ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other forms of employment compatible with the purposes and provisions of the bill. Giamt sequoia trees are a national treasure, and the Forest Service is fully committed to perpetuating the groves for present amd future generations. Perpetuation of the groves is the policy of the Forest Service as defined in the Regional Forester's direction of 1991, Sequoia National Forest Mediated Settlement Agreement of 1990, and the Presidential Proclaunation of 1992. Under this existing policy, the Forest Service has withdrawn the groves from the land base considered for timber production and given perpetuation of the groves priority over all other mauaagement considerations. We are currently mapping the groves and will prepare management plans specific to each grove in full consultation with Congress, the scientific community, interest groups, and the public, to ensure that majiagement proposals are scientifically sound and socially acceptaible. no There is con^lete agreement within the scientific community, the Forest Service, and the pxoblic at large that the groves must be preserved. The question is how. Two general approaches have been advanced. One approach, represented by H.R. 2153, recommends withdrawing the groves into a very large preserve that excludes or limits prescribed treatments designed to perpetuate the groves, such as fuel reduction, seedbed preparation, and competing vegetation removal. It should be noted that although the Reserve would encon5>ass more than 400,000 acres, only about 40,000 acres, or 10 percent of the proposed Reserve currently supports giant sequoias. The other approach suggests that some management is needed to perpetuate the groves. This approach retains flexibility to deal with problems of fuel buildup, dense understory vegetation, risks from drought, insects and disease, and increased recreation use in the Sierra Nevada region that together present greater risks of human caused wildfire. This approach recognizes that these are dynamic ecosystems which will change euid that preservation in a strict sense will not maintain sequoias. One of my key goals as Chief is to quickly and successfully implement ecosystem management in the National Forests cmd Grasslands. Ecosystem management suggests that we take a broader view. At a time when we are recognizing adjacent lands Ill 6 that may be part of the National Park System, State Park System, or other o*raerships and stressing cooperative management efforts, this bill would segregate out and prescribe management for a portion of two National Forests. We have already initiated two inportajit scientific efforts that when con?5leted, will greatly add to our knowledge of ecosystems in the Sierras; the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project smd the California Spotted Owl Environmental In5)act Statement. The information from these efforts is essential in developing successful management strategies on an ecosystem-wide basis. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project is a con^irehensive ecosystem study by ain independent panel of scientists, integrating state-of -the-science knowledge on the biological, physical, arid socio-economic environment. It will be used to develop management strategies to maintain ecosystem health ajid sustainability, while providing resources to meet human needs. The California Spotted Owl EIS process was initiated in March 1993. Alternatives are being analyzed for managing California Spotted Owl habitat on 10 forests in the Sierran Province, including the Sequoia cund Sierra National Forests. A draft EIS is expected to be availa±)le for public review and comment this Slimmer. We believe the findings from these two in^ortaint efforts need to be considered before long-term strategies are implemented. 112 At the Sequoia Syrt^josivun held in Visalia in 1992, attended by scientists, professional resource managers, and others concerned with protecting the groves, there was consensus among professionals and scientists that management is the best course if the groves are to be perpetuated. Some combination of silvicultural treatments, prescribed fire, and other measures could best ensure survival emd long term viability of giant sequoia. The risk to the groves from severe wildfire is the concern most often mentioned by scientists and professionals who favor active management. Although fire effects differ widely, periodic burning is em essential ecological process in fire -adapted ecosystems such as the mixed conifer and giant sequoia forests found within the lands affected by H.R. 2153. Excluding or greatly reducing natural fire within the sequoia groves and surrounding mixed conifer forests has had two undesirable effects. The first is unnaturally high fuel accumulations. The natural fire regime of frequent, low- intensity fires removed fuels and understory vegetation with little risk to the larger trees. Current unnaturally high fuel accvimulations can lead to intense wildfires that are extremely difficult to control, with potentially disastrous consequences for the sequoias and unacceptable risks to people and property. 113 The second undesirable effect is the relatively rapid change in forest structure and conqjosition. Species such as white fir are able to grow in the shade of the sequoias and, in addition to providing a "ladder" for fires to follow into the crown of the sequoias, greatly increase con^jetition for *ra.ter and soil nutrients on the site. The stress from this conpetition often results in insect and (lisease epidemics. We know of no •el«ntlf ically valid ai^eriawital studies or data on fir« ecology that muppoTta the conclusion that setting aside the groves can preserve them over time In the face of current levels of fuel bulldx^ and natural successlonal processes. Two methods are availedsle- to reduce unnaturally high fuel buildups : prescribed burning and direct removal of understory vegetation by thinning. Using only prescribed fire as a fuel reduction method has been used in groves in National Parks but, although a somewhat effective tool, does entail more risk thsm a ccmbination of these methods. Understory thinning to reduce fuel loads axid risk from insects and disease has also proven effective where carefully prepared and executed. In many of the giant sequoia stands, suppression of natural fires has resulted in invading 70 to 80 year old white fir which now provide continuous fuel "ladders" from the ground into the crowns of giant sequoias. Because of this, prescribed 114 burning often requires three or four applications to reduce the fuels emd invading trees without damaging the sequoias. The roads that currently exist within the Giant Sequoia groves are critical to maintaining essential fire suppression access during this treatment period. It is often more efficient and cost effective to remove the trees by thinning followed by a low- intensity prescribed fire treatment. Although there is still debate about the proper combination of methods to use, there is growing consensus that flexibility to choose methods where they are appropriate is essential to retaining sequoia groves over time. The Forest Service recommends this flexible approach to preserving the groves and managing the surroxinding mixed conifer forests as the most prudent and scientifically defensible at this time. We understand the concern and intent of H.R. 2153. However, we feel it is premature to set aside large acreages before fully exploring the ecological conditions in the groves and surrounding mixed- conifer forests and determining the kind of management that may be needed to ensure their survival. We want to work with the Committee to keep you fully informed of the progress of the Sierra Ecosystem study currently underway and are committed to cooperating with you to ensure perpetuation of giant sequoia. 115 10 It should also be noted that H.R. 2135 would be subject to the pay-as-you-go provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. This concludes my prepared statement . I would be pleased to answer the Subconmittee' s questions concerning the bill. 116 REVISED COPY Testimony of Caria Cloer concerning the GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT H.R. 2153 Before the House Agriculture Committee Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources 9 March 1994 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thanl< you for inviting me to testify before you today. The subject before us today, permanent protection of the Giant Sequoias and the ecosystem that sustains them, is a cause to which I have dedicated my time and my energy for the past 10 years. I strongly support H.R. 2153. I first visited Sequoia National Forest before I was two years old; ever since then the Sierra Nevada has been important to me. This spectacular mountain range contains the grandest, most diverse forest in the Pacific West; and crowning its glory are the Giant Sequoias with their brilliant russet baric; they are the largest and nearly the oldest living things on earth. An individual Giant Sequoia tree can live up to 3500 years, more than forty human lifetimes. European man discovered the species in 1839, about three human lifetimes ago; since that discovery, the future of Giant Sequoia groves and the chances for an individual tree to survive to old age will depend not only upon all the forces of nature, but upon the wisdom of each of 100 generations of human beings who will either nurture or pillage the ecosystem upon which the Sequoia's life depends. Much as Olympic runners pass the torch one to another, we must ensure that during our generation's tenure we carry the fate of these magnificent forests with great care, that we pass on to the next generation a Sequoia ecosystem which has begun to repair itself from past human errors. We need to leave a permanent legislative legacy to guide and to inspire those who follow. This ancient Sierra Nevada range, which John Muir called, 'The Range of Light," has been important to my family since the turn of the century; my great grandfather was a doctor in Porterville in the late 1800's. He and his family would ride horseback from Porterville up the Tule River Canyon to visit his friend, John Nelson, at Camp Nelson. Another of my great-grandfathers homesteaded near Porterville; his family camped and hunted in the Sierra. My mother's father built a cabin in the Tule River Canyon in 1930. Our family has stayed there each summer since then; my daughter is the fifth generation of my family to hike, fish, and ride horseback in this area. As a kid, I took for granted the forest, the meadows and streams, the Giant Sequoia, and the creatures that dwelled there; I knew it would all last forever. But, I was wrong. 117 Ctoer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 2 il remember the first time my horse Rascal and I saw a bulldozer on a trail which I thought was miles from anywhere. I didn't stop to think about what that bulldozer might mean. At first the changes were small; a few trees were logged here and there. But by 1970. clearcutting, with its nuclear logging methods, had made my favorite beautiful places unrecognizable. 1 1 feel strongly that those of us who know and love these mountains must fight for their protection. In my endeavors I have filled many roles. I am a co-founder of Sequoia Forest Alliance. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club. I am the official contact person representing the Sierra Club in the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement(MSA) of the Sierra Club's appeal of Sequoia Forest's 1988 Land Management Plan (LMP) and I am the Chairperson of our Chapter's Sequoia National Forest Committee. I also serve as the Litigation Coordinator for Tulare County Audubon's recent lawsuits which challenge Sequoia Forest's LMP as well as certain specific timber sales. I am on the board of the Tule River Conservancy and the Sequoia Forest Citizens' Coalition. I have read and researched countless Forest Service documents. I wrote the administrative appeal which led to the Sierra Club's successful legal battle to stop the logging in Giant Sequoia groves which took place in the mid-1 980's. I wrote a portion of the administrative appeal of Sequoia Forest's LMP. and I was a representative of the Sierra Club during the majority of the negotiations which led to the 1990 MSA. Between 1984 and 1994 I wrote numerous administrative appeals, consulted with experts including biologists, hydrologists, and foresters, conducted on-the-ground investigations and surveys, and I testified at a 1991 Hearing in Visalia before the House Subcommittee on General Oversight and California Desert Lands. I have served as a guest speaker at numerous occasions including the Sequoia Symposium, "Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society," June, 1992 sponsored by the University of California, Davis, Sequoia National Forest, and Sequoia National Park. We have pursued every legal avenue available in an attempt to bring the management of Sequoia National Forest into compliance with federal law and with the sound science of ecosystem management. I am absolutely convinced that the only final solution is legislatk>n. My message is simple: The future of the Giant Sequoias depends not only on the land beneath their roots but also upon the health of the entire forest of which they are a part. These ancient gifts from the past, whose ancestors gave shade to dinosaurs, do not belong only to those of us living here in 1990; they belong to the world and to the future. While most of the public believes that ail Giant Sequoia groves are already protected by law, that is not the case. Over 26,000 acres of groves have no statutory protection whatsoever. We must protect the groves AND their sustaining ecosystem. 118 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 3 Who would argue that we should protect Giant Sequoias and their ecosystem? Nearly everyone who will be testifying here today on all sides of the issue will support the concept of protecting Giant Sequoias. Indeed, most groups represented here signed a statement that "The Giant Sequoia Groves in Sequoia National Forest ("Groves") are a unique national treasure that shall be preserved. The goal for the administration of the groves shall be to protect, preserve, and restore the Groves for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations." H.R. 2153 will accomplish exactly those goals. It will permanently remove the pressure for commodity production so that decisions concerning management of Sequoia Groves can be based on science and knowledge. Why would anyone interested in preserving groves be opposed to this Bill? The only answer is, of course, that certain interests rely upon commodity extraction for their businesses' profit; even if they do not currently mine or log or otherwise use the resources of the forest, they want to keep future options open. They will try to tell you that the Forest can be all things to all people; they will try to convince you that we can convert the Forest into a commercial industrial tree farm, keep the wildlife, and protect Sequoias all at the same time. They are wrong. Meeting timber targets and keeping open a hungry timber mill has brought the forest ecosystem of Sequoia National Forest to a crises point. The logging excesses of the past cannot continue; it is not a viable option for the future. Looking at a map helps one to understand the forested lands of Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range is a narrow peninsula of life extending into a very arid region. Beginning just south of Lassen Gap and ending near Tehachapi, it has a total length of about 400 miles. Varying between 40 and 70 miles in width, it is totally within California except for a small portion in Nevada near Lake Tahoe. From 14,000 ft. granite peaks to the east it plunges abruptly into the arid Great Basin desert; and to the west it tapers more gradually into the San Joaquin Valley. At the extreme southern end of this range we find Sequoia National Forest; this is the southern-most National Forest in the Sierra Nevada; it borders on the Mohave Desert. The conifer belt is a narrow green ribbon winding between 5000 and 8000 feet elevation sandwiched between the jagged peaks of the high country and the arid chaparral of the lower elevatrans. Rainfall over the conifer zone is as low as 15 inches and is seldom higher than 40 inches. There would be insufficient rainfall to support conifers without the unK^ue placement and height of the Sierras. On the western slopes, these 14,000 ft. peaks trap moisture laden air arising from the Pacific Ocean and wring the rain from it before the air travels on to the desert-like eastern stapes. Compare our Southern Sierras with the Pacific Northwest where much of the forest is at sea level, more northern latitudes bring tonger winters, and rainfall is 80-100 inches per year. 119 DIoer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 4 It should be clear that southern Sierra Nevada forests are extremely fragile; the wildlife and plants are at the very edge of their range of life. It is also clear what geography dictates; the southern Sierra is not suited for conversion to heavy industrial commercial logging. But that is what the Forest Service is trying to do. The Forest Plan calls for converting most of our fragile, southern conifer zone into sterile pine tree farms. This not only destroys natural ecosystems, but, adding insult to injury, these tree farms are unsuccessful. Clearcut areas are much hotter and dryer than before logging and often cannot support conifers again in the near future. Surviving plantations grow very slowly. However, rather than reducing the amount of logging and using less destructive methods, Sequoia Forest writes reports which look only for data to support "business as usual." such as their Reforestation Report, dated June 1991 , written by Sequoia Forest Silviculturalist, Rot>ert Rogers. This report was written to meet both the requirements of the National Forest Management Act for determining that logging occur only where "stocking can be assured within 5 years of logging," and the requirement of the MSA for getting "real" figures upon which to base an Allowable Sale Quantity. Sequoia Forest is currently circulating this report to the media, to Congress, and to the Federal Courts; they characterize this report as 'a complete description of reforestation efforts on the SNF," and state that the Repwrt concludes that there are no reforestation problems on Sequoia Forest. The California Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society have had California Registered Foresters review and critkjue the Reforestation Report. The findings of these professional foresters is unanimous and alarming. Gordon Robinson, professional forester, author of The Forest and the Trees and expert in managing for true sustained yield and multiple use, reviewed this report and writes, 'I find tf>e report to be fraudulent and unacceptable. It is a typical example of the Forest Service's practice of manipulating information to come up with preconceived conclusions." California Registered Forester Dr. Robert J. Hrubes strongly criticizes Sequoia Forest's Reforestation Report of 1991 in his Declaratron of 7/19/93. Some of his points include: '(Sequoia's) assertions that 93% of the SNPs plantations are adequately stocked are without factual basis." The SNF ... completely avoid(ed) the most fundamental issue -- whether reforestation performance was adequate, as defined by statute, regulation, regional 120 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 5 policy, and SNF standards and guidelines." "SNF put fonvard a definition of reforestation success utterly deficient and grossly inconsistent with Forest Service Handbook direction." "(The Report) fails to respond to its own data that reveals chronic reforestation failures." Dr. Hrubes Declaration includes photos of plantations which he found to be "failed" but which SNF's Report claims are successful. Registered Forester James DePree reviewed the Report for the Sierra Club and for Tulare County Audubon. Some of his points include: "Besides faulty methodology, the (Report) should have contained proper basis for stocking standards for acceptable reforestation." "It is impossible to draw any scientifically based conclusions regarding the suitability of any specific type of site. Because of this fact, the (Report) cannot and should not be used in any other analyses, plans, environmental documents, or public statements by the SNF." Greg Harty, a forester, with the Public Forestry Foundation reviewed the Report. Some of his points include: "Seldom have we had the opportunity to examine greater amounts of information presented in such a meaningless fashion." "We believe that the distribution of seedlings throughout the plantations is so inadequate as to render the future volume projections generated through computer models ...totally meaningless." At a recent field trip. Sequoia Forest sitviculturalist, Robert Rogers, acknowledged that data in his 1991 report did not differentiate between seedlings that were planted only a few months before the survey and mature trees which had been growing on a site for decades. When Mr. Rogers made this point, we were at a unit to which we had taken Congressman Dooley and Congressman Jim Jontz in 1991. This unit, 1001 A, had been first logged in 1964 and replanted in 1965. It was declared a failed unit in 1970, and it was enlarged and logged again in 1984. It had been replanted in 1985, 1987, and in 1990. Today, one still has to search for newly planted seedlings among the brush. By most reasonable definitions it is a failed unit, but it has been reported as a successfully stocked 1965 plantation in every reforestation report. In 1987, under penalty of perjury, Steven Pintek, District silviculturalist on the Tule River District, declared that this unit was not only successful but that it was also in good condition. 121 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 6 How can Sequoia Forest make statements like this? First they carefully redefine the words "successful" and "stocked" and "suitable." If the seedlings haven't yet died when they survey a unit (it is standard to look at merely 1% of a unit), they claim that logging-as-usual is doing fine, no need to cut back logging volumes and related budgets. With their definitions, the only lands that could be "unsuitable" woukj be those too remote for replanting crews to reach. This report does not tell us what we really need to know: the age of the trees, the height, diameter, rate of growth, condition, and species. Their method counts nearly anything as a tree, whether Giant Sequoia or newly planted seedling, commercially valuable Ponderosas or invasions of lodgepole pine. Using this method, if I had enough seedlings and manpower, I could keep Death Valley stocked with trees and this report would call it a successful plantation; the only problem would be that in 100 years this "successful" plantatran would still have only freshly planted seedlings. am submitting copies of these documents which critk^ue the Reforestation Report with this testimony. Ordinary citizens can take the Report, request the maps, tocate the units, and walk through the brush looking for seedlings or for trees. We can drive through or fly over okJ cut-over units and see for ourselves that it will be hundreds of years before the trees are mature enough for relogging, and some areas have been permanently converted to high elevation desert. We can also dig into Sequoia Forest's own files and read in-house reports whrch include some alarming information. Here are some quotes from a report called. "Plantation Performance on the Sequoia National Forest, Timber Harvest Implrcations and Data Needs," 1988. Page 9: "...It Is dear that neither past growth nor current growth is at a level that will altow harvests as early as projected.." page 10: "...Is the growth estimate of 31% of nominal., (and) a reasonable estimate of what is actually occurring on the Sequoia NF? The answer is clearly "yes." " "Numerous plantations on the Forest "look realty good", however, only two out of 30 sampled demonstrated diameters or heights that were greater than nominal." Page 1 1 : "The effect of snow damage on present growth was not evaluated... However it is 122 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page? obviously causing an apprecieible effect when 64% of the plantations atx>ve 7400 feet elevation have enough damage to mention and 36% of these plantations have 25% or more of their trees damaged.' Page 12: 'Although available knowledge is still far from perfect, enough is now known to show that past actions have not been adequate to produce the growth upon which our long term planning assumptions are based. To continue past action, and at the same time expect relatively high yields from lands managed intensively for timber, would be to create an unreconciled contradiction." Page 29: 'Thus if one is willing to accept little or no decline in future yields from acres harvested for regeneration, only 30% of our normal program is available for sale." ("Little or no decline" is defined as 'low risk" which has a 20% chance of failure.) This 'low risk" volume would have been only 26 Million Board Feet(MMBF) in 1988; compare this to their ASQ of 75 MMBF in 1988. Today you will hear testimony that Sequoia Forest's harvest levels are declining and that the destructive overlogging of the past will no longer occur, yet Sequoia Forest logged 59 MMBF in 1993. This can be verified from their own records. Despite their claims to have new management direction, an ecosystem management emphasis, and they have new information and guidelines concerning retention of Spotted Owl Habitat, their level of harvest remains at least three times what the Forest can sustain. Based on the above quotes, clearly it had occurred to Sequoia Forest administrators that gathering real data and applying principles of sound science to timber management will result in a sharp decline in timber volumes; but there is no incentive for gathering data which might result in a drastically reduced budget. So, bogus studies are completed or studies are put off for one reason or another, and logging continues as usual. But sooner or later nature will stop the pillage; continuing to log at full speed witf>out scientific foundation is like running towards a cliff blindfolded while assuring everyone that you won't get hurt because you can't see the danger. Watershed experts including Dr. G. Mathias Kondolf and Daniel P. Christenson will be providing testimony concerning the vast amounts of watershed and fisheries damage that intensive togging causes on Sequoia National Forest. Because of the overlogging. Sequoia Forest has found it neariy impossible to plan and implement a timber sale which meets the requirements of its own Guidelines and 123 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 8 =ederal law. Attorney Kirk Boyd will delineate the myriad of legal problems which Sequoia Forest runs into when it tries to plan and implement logging activities which do not take into consideration the finite limitations of the forest. In addition to all this destruction caused by overlogging and unsuccessful plantations, another insult is that logging-as-usual is economically irresponsible. Forest economist Robert Wolf is presenting testimony which clearly explains that the logging program of Sequoia Forest is a losing proposition even when evaluated solely on its economic impacts to the American taxpayer. I believe that anyone who scrutinizes the record will clearly see that geographically this Forest is not suited to logging, it is not a good tree farm; past attempts to turn it into a tree farm have resulted in a fragmented forest. It needs every contiguous block of unkjgged forest that remains if it is to survive and retain its integrity as a forest ecosystem. Ail of our testimony today which refers to reforestation failures, watershed damages, and economic defteits of togging all serve to underscore our positfon that logging is not a valid option for the future of Sequoia Forest. It would be easy to get sidetracked into viewing the forest as merely a lumber producing farm because that is how the Forest Servrce has viewed it. But how does all of this relate to Sequoia Groves? During discussfon and analysis, it is easy to splinter a complicated biological entity, such as a forest, into its various components and to begin to separate them so that we lose track of how they all inten-elate. The forest of the southern Sierra, including the Giant Sequoia groves, is all one ecosystem. Here the Giant Sequoia groves are making their last stand, scattered amongst the overlogged forests of Sequoia National Forest. About thirty-eight groves have been identified in Sequoia Forest, but to separate and isolate them into small islands as if they are not a part of the whole forest, or as if their existence does not depend upon the health of the whole forest, is to ensure their demise. Extensive logging and roadbuilding around groves can have drastic impacts which may not be apparent for a century or more. To protect the groves, we must protect the forest which sustains them and of which they are a part. We are heartened to hear the new Chief of the Forest Service pledge to institute ecosystem management. Today, by Forest Service Policy and consistent with the MSA, the groves are defined as islands surrounded by 'ordinary" forest lands. The definition of grove and the protection of the groves is based on locating the existing trees, measuring out 500 feet from the outermost Sequoia, and placing a marker at that point. Outskje of that marker logging can continue as usual. Pacing several feet from a Sequoia is not a science or ecosystem driven process. This definition of ■grove" was bargained during the MSA negotiations. As Joe Fontaine, member of the 124 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 9 National Sierra Club Board states in his letter of 3/1/94, there was no science and no biological data which guided the placement of the grove boundaries, it was a stop- gap definition, the best the Sierra Club could get under the circumstances; it was a temporary measure designed to stop destruction in the heart of the groves until permanent legislative solutions could be gained. The Forest Service will testify that it too wants to protect Giant Sequoia Groves. It will tell you that the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act is not necessary, that Forest Service Policy will preserve the Giants. Forest Service policy protected the groves in the past, and Forest Service policy failed to do its job. The following summary of events may serve to illustrate why agency policy is totally insufficient to protect the groves over time, and why legislation is imperative. As detailed in the Administrative Appeal of the Decision to Log in Giant Sequoias, in the 1970's Forest Service Policy protected the groves. Several of us were very concerned about the loss of the forest outside of the groves. We knew that overlogging the forest adjacent to the groves would eventually affect the groves themselves, but there was no immediate concern. There was 'common knowledge" that logging in groves had been stopped after the abuses at the turn of the century. Not only was there the assumption that logging within groves was prohibited, many groves were posted with yellow signs which declared: "Type! REDWOOD GROVE Area Back of This Sign Established Under Reg U-3 by Regional Forester" which according to Region 5 Guidelines meant: "...No major activities such as campground or road construction, or timber cutting, will be permitted within any Type I Grove." This was the first specific Forest Service Manual direction for management of Giant Sequoias. Sequoia Forest documents written between 1970 and 1984, including District Multiple-Use Plans, refer to various groves as being Type I. Then in the Fall of 1986. Charlene Little stumbled into a logged-over portion of the Long Meadow Grove. Roads had been pushed through the grove, large areas of Sequoia roots had been severed, huge swaths of earth had been piled, and all vegetation had been removed except for Giant Sequoias 8 feet in diameter and larger; it looked like a war zone. 125 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 10 What had happened to the Type I protection? The official response was, 'Some grove boundaries were posted with Grove Type sign, but no groves were approved as Type I by the Regional Forester. " They had no idea who had posted the hundreds of signs. They told us that now there was a new designation system. It had a category for preservation, but none of the logged groves were in that category. There was no law prohibiting logging in the groves, no law protecting the Giant Sequoias. When the Type I policy changed, apparently in 1984, the only written record available is an electronic mail transmittal sheet. There was no public involvement and no environmental studies which preceded the decision to change policy. Even if the policy had been changed in a proper manner, the following sales which allowed logging in groves had Decision Notices issued prior to the new policy transmittal date of 3/28/84: Red Sale(1982), Ridge 2 Sale (1982). Huckleberry Sale (1983), Eagle Sale{1983), Buck Sale(1983), Gauntlet Sale(1983), Wind Sale(1984), and sales in the Alder Creek Grove. Between August, 1986 and March, 1987, concerned citizens sent letters and petitions to the Supervisor of Sequoia National Forest, James A. Crates. He agreed not to approve any new projects within groves until a forest-wide Giant Sequoia management plan was written, but he would not stop sales already under contract. This meant that two proposed sales which would have logged in the Freeman Creek Grove were stopped. However, over 457 acres (not including areas in Alder Creek Grove) had already been logged in groves. Mr. Crates was reaffirming his decision to log an additional 593 grove acres. Supervisor Crates' decision to not stop logging in groves was appealed to the Regional Forester; the appeal was rejected as 'untimely." The only recourse available was to file a lawsuit and to request an injunction. In the Sierra Club vs. The United States Forest Service ,we sought an injunction on nine timber sales, five of which involved logging in Giant Sequoia Groves. A major issue was Sequoia Forest's failure to have an Environmental Impact Statement on any portion of its timber program. Sequoia Forest argued that the logging was actually 'grove enhancement" and was being done to release the Sequoias from a buildup of nonSequoia species which were causing a fire hazard and inhibiting Sequoia reproduction. However, during the lawsuit discovery process, Sequoia Forest was unable to produce even a single study, map, or document which indicated that the specific areas approved for logging had been determined to have such conditions. There was a contradiction in their contention that the logging was to enhance Sequoia reproduction because all of the stand preschptksns called for planting 75 percent pine and 25 percent Sequoia at 10 by 10 foot spacing up to the drip line of the spared giants, creating an even-aged plantation. In actuality, they were committing those grove acres to the perpetual production of timber with its repeated cycle of logging, release, planting, thinning, and relogging. 80-635 0 -94 -5 126 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 1 1 Why did they do this? Possibly some personnel actually believed that the logging would help the groves; however, an interview with former Regional Forester, Zane G. Smith. Jr., now retired, indicates that Sequoia Forest was under the gun to meet inflated logging volumes. Logging in the groves was the result of tremendous budgetary and other incentives to maximize the cut and to turn a blind eye to other resource values. Giant Sequoias typically occupy the better timber growing sites so there were some valuable old-growth nonSequoia trees harbored in the groves. About this same time Sequoia Forest initiated clearcuts in other sensitive areas such as important viewsheds and very steep slopes. Conservation groups were convinced that any Sequoia seedling that might become established after logging would be logged during the next re-entry, in the Converse Basin, where there was once the largest grove of Giant Sequoias known in the Sierra Nevada before the turn-of-the-century logging, natural restoration was occurring. Sequoias which had germinated from the natural seed bed had grown to considerable size, up to 6 feet in diameter. However, in the Cabin Sale, 1985. not only were non- Sequoia trees logged, but the Sequoias that were replacements for their logged ancestors were also cut. Sequoia Forest explained that these trees were 'second growth" and therefore did not qualify for sparing. By the same logic, any Sequoia tree which was established after the more recent logging could also be defined as 'second growth" and be logged. Experts found that the type of logging occurring in the groves could cause significant environmental impacts. While waiting for the judge to rule, logging continued in the groves. Local citizens watched as survey stakes were replaced by bulldozed roads and then as every living thing was removed from the units except for the largest Giants. About 16 months after the lawsuit was filed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted us an injunction. The case was won, not because it was illegal to log in groves, but because of the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement. Because of court delays, only four units in groves were saved; two in the Peyrone Grove and two in the Red Hill Grove. Even after the injunction was in place stopping the projects, Sequoia Forest continued with the site preparation and planting. During the course of site preparation, many smaller Giant Sequoias, up to 8 inches in diameter ( up to 60 years old) were •accidentally" cut, piled, and burned. These young stumps are evidence that the grove was indeed regenerating itself before the treatment," and evidence that young Sequoia reproduction was not a prk^rity to Sequoia Forest. While the contract provided for penalties for damaging any specimen Sequoia, Sequoia Forest did not penalize the industry for cutting these trees. Although we had sent the message loud and clear that Sequoia groves were special 127 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 12 places. Sequoia National Forest still was not deterred from its plan to log in groves. Even after thie injunction was in place, the 1988 Sequoia Forest's Land Management Plan (t-MP) called for similar treatment of 9,300 acres within Giant Sequoia groves. Many groups filed an appeal on the LMP; many of these appeals were resolved by the MSA. As late as 1 990, Environmental Assessments were listing the goals of "manage groves with objectives of perpetuating the species, preserving old growth specimen trees, and providing timber." Please note that throughout all of the controversy no one has suggested that there is a shortage of individual Giant Sequoia trees; the concern has been for the natural processes of the ecological entity call a "grove." Getting the Forest Service to protect "groves" instead of merely protecting unique large specimen trees while doing tree-farm management around them has been a continuing battle. It has been ten years since the protection of Type I Grove Policy was changed to allow the destruction of the groves. It has taken ten years of intense dedication by unpaid volunteers and tens of thousands of dollars donated by private citizens to regain a grove protection policy; while we were regaining that protection more than 1000 acres were logged from the cores of more than eight groves. It is unthinkable that this battle might have to be fought again; the groves cannot bear to lose more acres in the process. We must face the fact that Forest Service Policy is subject to the whims of changing administrations. Even with the best of intentions, management of local National Forests can be caught in budgetary dilemmas which leave them few alternatives but to produce commodities to the detriment of other resource values. Legislation is the most permanent protection we are able to provide. You may be told today that a Mediated Settlement(MSA) of the appeals of Sequoia Forest's Land Management Plan protects Giant Sequoias. This is incorrect. The MSA's provisions for grove boundaries was bargained to be 500 ' from the outermost Sequoia in each grove. This is not a science driven process. There is no determination or protection of the ecological elements, such as ground water level, etc, upon which the groves depend. The MSA definition was a stop-gap measure to protect the hearts of the groves until further science and stronger protection could be gained. The MSA allows togging in Converse Basin, once the largest grove in existence. The MSA is valid only until the next Forest Planning Cycle, a maximum of 10 years. The enclosed letter from Joe Fontaine, who also served as a Sierra Club representative during negotiattons, further explains the MSA. You may be told today that President Bush's proclamation in 1992 makes grove protection policy permanent; but this proclamation incorporates the MSA and therefore incorporates the flaws of the MSA. And the proclamation contains the paragraph. 128 Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 13 "This proclamation is not intended to create any right or benefit, sub^antive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person." This is not the accountable enforceable protection we are seeking. Much of my testimony has centered on the abuses of the past; however, my objective has been to convince you that Forest Service policy alone will never be sufficient to protect the Giant Sequoia ecosystem. H.R. 2153 will provide the security needed for Sequoia National Forest to administer the groves for preservation and the continuation of natural processes in perpetuity. I must not fail to balance the portrayal of the damages of the Forest with the beauty that remains. There are thousands of acres of pristine forested lands which will be the heart of the Sequoia Preserve. Beautiful vistas, fenvsided streams, ancient pine and untouched Sequoias remain. Trails wind up rivers shaded by Sequoias as ancient as time itself. With further human damage prevented, nature will begin the healing process. Where science and humans can speed the healing, we can help. Let us envision a Sequoia Forest crowned with a legislatively protected Giant Sequoia ecosystem which also provides habitat for spotted owls, golden trout mariposa lilies, pine martin, sugar pine, and myriad of other species, a Forest where waters run clean once again, and where millions of visitors enjoy a splendor rivaling any National Park. We will then be able to transfer this priceless legacy, this wonderful forest, safely into the hands of the next generatk>n, setting an example for them to foikjw. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to test^ on behalf of H.R. 2153. Rfia)ectfuHy Submitted, Carta Ck>er 182 East Rekl Avenue Pottefville CA 93257 (Attachments are held in the cosnBlttee files.) 129 STATEMENT of MICHAEL McCLOSKEY for Che SIERRA CLUB on H.R. 2153. THE GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT before the SUBCOKMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. March 9, 1994 I an Michael McCloskey, ChairBan of the Sierra Club. I welcome this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Sierra Club in support of H.R. 2153. The Sierra Club is a national environmental organization of over 550,000 members. For over a century. Sierra Club members have been active in the fight to protect the giant sequoias. The legislation before your Committee today gives you the opportunity to complete this effort once and for all . The National Audubon Society also wishes to associate itself with the views expressed in this statement. Introduction California's Sierra Nevada range Is home to the world's only giant sequoias, or Sequoiadendron giganteum. These magnificent trees are the largest and most majestic living things on earth. They are close plant relatives of California's Coastal Redwoods, China's D8%m Redvoods and the Bald Cypress of the Aaerican South. Awe-inspiring and colorful, some giant sequoias have reached an age of over 3,000 years. The same area that is home to these imposing forests also includes the plunging depth* of the Kings River Canyon- -the deepest canyon in United States. On the •outhem shoulder of this magnificent canyon grow the remnants of the Converse Basin grove, where the largest of the ancient giant sequoias once towered. Eighty years ago most of these giants were laid low by plunderers. This area is now a forest of stumps, some nearly as large as this hearing room, which is only just beginning to regrow. Views from the smaller scattered remnant groves look across and down mighty King's Canyon, and are an important reason for including this northern portion of sequoia habitat In the bill before your Committee. , 130 The extremely fragile ecosystems which are home to the giant sequoias include many other old growth tree species, including red, white and Douglas fir, incense cedar, black oak and ponderosa, Jeffrey, western and sugar pine. These forests provide a home for the California spotted owl, fisher and pine marten. And in the future, if protected, these forests may again provide nesting habitat for the California condor, as they did until a few years ago. In fact, one of the last natural nesting sites for the condor was found in a sequoia grove, but alas this was known only after the tree had been cut down. The Problem * « Despit-e worldwide acclaim and reverence, less than half of these amazing trees are protected in national parks. The rest are on national forest land, still subject to the adverse impacts from nearby logging and other degradations. These forest ecosystems are already home to endemic, rare, threatened and endangered species of plants and wildlife; further destruction of these forests can only accelerate the extirpation or extinction of these species. The Forest Service realized many years ago that these trees, some of the oldest and largest living things on the face of the earth, should not be destroyed. In fact, until a decade ago, the Regional Office of the Forest Service had a policy of leaving sequoia groves intact- -groves were marked as off-limits to logging. Then In 1982 the Forest Service, with no public notice, abandoned the policy 'and embarked on a program to conduct timber sales within giant sequoia groves. While enormous "specimen" trees of eight feet or more in diameter were not cut down, the entire surrounding forests, including younger giant sequoias, were clearcut. Since the Forest Service made Che decision that it was acceptable to clearcut within the giant sequoia groves, many of the large and ancient giants now stand naked Co the wind. The foresc around chem is ripped aparc. The Foresc Service defended Chis practice as "grove enhancement." The theory was that allowing sunlight In, and removing other tree species, would make it easier for young sequoia seedlings to survive. But In fact, Chis disCurbance probably put the remaining giant sequoias at greater risk. Their extremely shallow roots are fragile and susceptible to damage caused by Che heavy equipmenc needed for logging. And by removing Che surrounding crees, Che Foresc Service has made the glanCs far more suscepcible Co windchrow and drought. The Reaction Once they heard about Chis oucrage, the local conservacion communlcy became decennined to protecc sequoia groves once and for all. Through filing lawsuiCs and negociaclons over Che Foresc Plan, Chey were able Co get the Forest Service to change its policy and stop cutting In Che sequoia groves. However, uncil Che glanC sequoias are permanently protected by law, this spectacular heritage is still at great risk in Che hands of Che Forest Service. Its policies cannot be regarded as permanenc since Ic is an 131 agency which can change as Adminlscrations change wich Presidential elections. Opponents of the bill before you today have said that since the Sierra Club signed a Sequoia Forest Plan Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service and other interested parties, we should not be looking for additional legislative protections for these forests. However, the Club signed this agreement in an attempt to get some scientific direction for the management of the giant sequoias and their associated surrounding forests. The agreement created no-cut zones in and around the groves in an attempt to gain some minimal protection while research established the appropriate management for long-term protection of the groves. The cutting levels and grove boundary protective measures set by the settlement agreement were based on estimates reflecting missing data and guesswork. We hoped that future scientific study would lead to better long-term protection. The past few years have proven that the timber targets set by this settlement agreement are Impossible to meet. The settlement agreement was a choice between fighting long court battles or offering minimum protection for the sequoia groves while scientific research determined the approprte management for their long-term protection. All sides agreed, and we discussed this extensively during negotiations, that signing the agreement would not preclude the other parties from seeking additional legislative solutions to forest management. The agreement was an interim administrative solution to protect the sequoia groves from imminent destruction, and, in fact, the agreement will expire in several years. By signing the agreement, the Sierra Club gave up the legal right to challenge several timber sales. In turn, the Forest Service was supposed to produce studies to supply the science needed to manage these forests. They have not done this, and therefore, the cut level has not been revised, trtilch was another thing the Forest Service committed itself to do under the agreement. Opponents of this bill also say that the sequoia groves are already protected by President Bush's proclaaation in 1992. This Is not true. President Bush's proclamation only perpetuated the incomplete protections afforded to the groves by the mediated settlement agreement; it ignored completely the fragile ecosystem surrounding the groves. Legislation is the only option for protecting these magnificent trees for their multl •millennial life spans . The Solution Representative George Brown's bill H.R. 2153) seeks to protect these unique trees and to preserve and restore the ecosystem upon which they depend for all time. Briefly, I will cover what the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act would do, and why the Sierra Club thinks this bill provides an appropriate way to go about preserving the remaining unprotected giant sequoias. The bill establishes a Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve consisting of 442,425 acres In Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, where virtually all statutorily unprotected giant sequoias grow. ^ H" 132 The Sierra Club accepts Che bill's decision to keep che Preserve under Foresc Service jurisdiction rather than transferring It to the National Park Service. Though the Club and other environmental groups have often disagreed strongly with the Forest Service over the management of Sequoia National Forest lands, we are heartened by che new direction the Service seems to be taking. Jack Uard Thomas, the new Chief of the Forest Service, has recently indicated that the agency is changing and that its goal Is to promote ecosystem management. Ve see that as in keeping with the intent of Representative Brown's bill. The primary need for this Preserve Is for the protection of the ancient forest ecosystem within its boundaries. Ue believe the Foresc Service has Che sclencif Ic capabllicy Co manage Che Preserve Co ' that end. With the restrictions on management clearly spelled out in the leglslacloti, we believe che Foresc Service will have the needed guidance to ensure that the sequoia ecosystem is permanently protected. The bill encompasses an area larger than the sequoia groves themselves. It Includes the entire watersheds containing the groves, from old growth forests to chaparral. By preserving the lowlands, which provide che winter foraging and breeding ranges for deer and other species that move up and down the mountain slopes, the groves will be protected. In many parts of che Sierra Nevada, Chese lower elevation habitats have been eliminated through subdivision and development. Ic Is hard for us Co conceive of Che length of time it takes for the ancient giant sequoias to grow. Through research using carbon dating, it has been determined that two thousand years ago. In the middle of the Giant Forest at Crescent Meadow in Sequoia National Park, sequoias were a very minor part of the local flora. Evidence of seeds and other sequoia matter there was minimal; yet now, Crescent Meadow is the center of one of the largest sequoia groves. There is evidence that groves have migrated in response to climatic change. They might also expand under favorable, protected conditions. Ue do not know enough about Che dynamics of che sequoia groves themselves Co simply draw lines around Chem and declare Chac Chey are saved. We cannoc destroy the forests around chese sequoia groves; Chey need Co be able to expand and move into more favorable parts of the forest over the next two thousand years and beyond. Provisions The bill («ec. 3(*)) defines a National Forest Preserve as forested public lands dedicated for scientific study, recreational activity, and/or environmencal protection and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to recomaend to Congress and che President che establishment of other National Forest Preserves. While there are public forests %#hlch are appropriate for cinber harvest, there are also others, like those within the boundaries of the Clant Sequoia Preserve, %rhlch would be better off with no more logging. While somewhat similar Co the forest reserve system set up by the ancient forest protection provisions of President Clinton's Plan for the Pacific Northwest and northern California, the Sequoia Preserve Is far better because the protection of these ■s 133 forescs Is both pemanenc and InvlolaCe. The bill (sec. 6) establishes a Scientific Advisory Board to make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on measures needed to protect and manage the natural and scenic resources In the Preserve and to develop plans for fire management, scientific study, forest regeneration, recreational use and other technical matters. This provision of the bill will ensure that the management of the Preserve is solidly based in science. We believe that this is the correct way to manage forests for their optimum health, and this will be a welcome change on the national forests that provide giant sequoia habitat. Sierra Club activists look forward to working In cooperation with the Scientific Advisory Board for the mutual benefit of all concerned, and most importantly, for the environmental health of these threatened forest ecosystems. The bill allows for recreational activity. Including fishing and hunting, within the Preserve. Designating this area as a National Forest Preserve will allow hunting which is not inconsistent with the goals of protecting these ancient forest ecosystems (sec. 7(J)). The bill (sec. 7 (e)) allows for recreational vehicle use of existing roads and establishes trails for hikers, mountain bikers and the disabled. Recreational activities would be allowed on the existing roads In the Preserve. The only change Is that no more roads would be built. Once the timber program stops, there should be no more need for further roadbulldlng (as there are already many roads). The establishment of new trails for various user groups will help make the Preserve an inviting place to recreate. The existing resorts and camps In the area will provide places for the general public to stay and enjoy these magnificent forests. We encourage the Forest Service to work with the owners and operators of these facilities in providing the public with educational and recreational opportunities. The bill stop should also stop below-cost timber sales elsewhere in Sequoia National Forest. Not only are the giant sequoias still in jeopardy, but the national forests in which they grow are being overcut and mismanaged at taxpayer expense. Logging in the Sequoia National Forest has very low economic viability. There is no real competition for harvest bids, and thus the bids are the lowest in Region 5. This leads to below-cost sales on the Sequoia National Forest which are costing U.S. citizens over $6 million every year (over and above the administrative costs of running the Forest). This bill would stop these unacceptable federal subsidies in giant sequoia habitat. The Sierra Club believes that all below-cost timber sales nationwide should be stopped. It is bad enough that our forests have been managed poorly and cut at rates which are unsustainable. The taxpayers should not also be forced to foot the bill for this destruction. These paractices should be stopped and barred by law. The bill (sec.7(k)) prohibits timber cutting in the Preserve, except for purposes of scientific study and fire control. The giant sequoia habitat Is worth far more in its natural state than It is converted Into lumber. In fact. Forest Service figures show that Sequoia recreation is six tlmies more 134 valuable than Its timber. Since lumber prices may rise and fall, Jusc stopping the below-cost sale program In this region Is not enough to ensure permanent protection of the giant sequoias and other surrounding species. In addition, the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests are very dry, with quite poor soils. Hauling logs to the mills Is also a long and costly proposition. The terrain Is steep and rugged. Clearcuttlng on hills causes thousands of tons of precious topsoll to wash off, which destroys streams and fisheries and fills reservoirs with silt. Despite their efforts, the Forest Service has a very poor record when It comes to reforesting these lands. Most seedlings planted after a timber harvest simply do not grow back well, and often die very early on. In fact, less than '20% of the acreage replanted In the Sequoia National Forest between 1976 and 1986 was certified as successfully restocked. Many question whether the existing giant sequoia ecosystem, and indeed ancient forests in general, are replaceable. The lands are eroding and becoming drier at an alarming rate. This is too precious and rare a resource to experiment with. The forests of the southern Sierra Nevada survive under dry, almost desert-like conditions compared with most forests where commercial timber harvest is successful. California has also been hard hit recently by year after year of drought. This bill does not lock away the forest from multiple use. While It does eliminate commercial timber harvest, it encourages significant dispersed recreational opportunities. Hunting and fishing would continue. As for the provisions to allow logging for scientific study and fire control (sec. 7(k)), the Sierra Club Is concerned with possible negative ramifications that may well be associated with this Idea. Allowing salvage sales could easily stimulate demands for Increasing sales volume to expand timber production. Increasingly, "salvage" Is the excuse by which otherwise inappropriate timber sales are being approved on national forests in the Sierra Nevada. The Forest Service's current Sierra Nevada salvage volume estimates conclude that "80 percent of all timber harvested on the forests Is from dying trees as a result of drought and Insect attacks." Recently, acceleration of salvage logging occurred following Forest Service NFMA regulations that exempted such sales from administrative appeal and lowered regulatory requirements for environmental review on any salvage sale under one million board feet (dead) or 250,000 board feet (green). The Sierra Club Is apprehensive any tine Forest Service regulations succeed in reducing or eliminating public participation in the planning process, especially when the new ecosystem management policy calls public Involvement essential to expanding the agency's conservation partnerships. Harvesting dead or dying trees under "fire control" emergency provisions Is not the answer to Improving forest health. Doing this allows managers Increased flexibility in expediting salvage sales as compensation for reduced timber volumes offered under green sales. In a July 1992 press release. Sequoia Forest Industries called for quick salvage sales as a protection against "disastrous forest wildfire" conditions. The Forest Service responded with a release saying that the "regional fuels community recognized early In the salvage effort that the removal of dead trees Co provide saw logs was not the answer to reducing fire hazards. Substantial material and slash left after logging has the biggest Impact on fire behavior." Removing dead trees. 135 which would be beneficial to the forest ecology if they are left where they are, will not decrease the risk of fire, but may instead cause serious environmental damage to important forest ecosystems. The Sierra Club only supports timber harvest in the Preserve that is done to restore natural conditions. Many places in the Preserve are in quite poor condition due to historic fire suppression, bad logging practices and other mismanagement. These areas may require thinning, the removal of species that are not naturally occurring, and so forth. We do not support any sales for the purpose of commodity production within the Preserve. Also, as southern California's population continues to expand and demand more recreational opportunities, Congressionally protected status for the giant sequoias and their habitat has become even more important. Sequoia National Park receives enormous visitation annually. Spreading out the visitors to a larger area will enhance the visitor experience and also do less damage to the giant sequoias themselves. The bill (sec. 7(1)) prohibits mining and geothermal exploration in the Preserve. While uses such as recreation and limited scientific experimentation are compatible with the bill's Intent, extractive activities such as mining and geothermal exploration are not. With so few of these giant sequoias remaining, and located as they are in such fragile and arid ecosystems, any activities that might Impair their chances of survival and dispersal must not be allowed. There is plenty of public land available in California more suited to these pursuits. In addition. It should be noted that the economic potential for mining and geothermal exploration within the area would be negligible at best. The bill (sec. 8(g)) provides for assistance to help communities and citizens affected by the Preserve's establishment. The bill establishes a community assistance task force which will allow for grants and loans for economic diversification, job training, counseling and placement of workers who lose their jobs owing to the establishment of the Preserve. Though the number of jobs that might be lost as a result of this bill becoming law Is substantially smaller than the job loss that loggers are facing in the Pacific Northwest and northern California, It is nonetheless critical that the workers who may be displaced be helped through this transition. It Is never an easy thing to advocate a position that will cost even one worker his or her livelihood. Therefore, a crucial part of the bill provides for assistance for the citizens and communities which would undergo this change. Sierra Club is very supportive of this provision. The bill also provides (sec. 8 (a)) for yearly federal payments to local political subdivisions for support of education and other purposes. This provision of the bill is also of economic Importance to local communities that might be affected by the Preserve's establishment. If county school and road budgets are still tied to a national forest's timber receipts, this would be a disincentive for that county to be in favor of a decreased timber harvest, even if the cut is at an unsustainable level and will eventually result in decreased revenues from tourism. With federal payments set up under this bill, local governments will not suffer economic hardship from the proper 136 8 managemenc of Chelr nearby national forests. These payments are to be equivalent to amoiints that would be paid as taxes on parcels of private timber land. The bill also provides a mechanism for arbitration of disputes between the Secretary and local governments with regard to the tax-equivalency amount. Conclusion In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Club urges the Committee to act favorably on H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, and pass it on to the full House Agriculture Committee for its consideration. Passage of the. Giant Sequoia Preservation Act would give these magnificent national treasures the protection they need to survive. The giant sequoias are a truly unique part of the world's natural heritage and as such should be protected and passed on Intact for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. 137 Boyd, Huffman & Williams attorneys at law 55 FRANCISCO STREET, SUITE 550 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94133 (415) 981-5500 FACSIMILE (415) 981-5501 March 6, 1994 TESTIMONY OF KIRK BOYD BOYD, HUFFMAN & WILLIAMS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW IN SUPPORT OF HR 2153 THE "GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT" before HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES on MARCH 9, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony in support of HR 2153, the "Giant Sequoia Preservation Act." Ovir law firm represents Environment Now, The Tulare Coimty Audubon Society, the Sequoia Forest AUiance and other environmental organizations. 0\ir firm recently won a lawsuit brought in the United States District Coxirt for the Eastern District of California on behalf of the Tvilare County Audubon Society and Sequoia Forest Alliance, Tulare County Audubon Society, et al., V. Mike Espy, CV-F-93-5373 OWW. The issue raised was whether the Forest Service had to complete supplemental environmental impact statements on four timber sales to take into consideration new scientific information on the California Spotted Owl. The Court ruled that the new information is "significant" and ordered that it be considered by the Forest Service. I will not recapitulate the lengthy pleadings and declarations in the case in their entirety. The actions of the Forest Service can be summarized in one word: DISINGENUOUS. The Forest Service had not made a genuine effort to incorporate the latest scientific information ~ to the contrary, the Forest Service intentionaUy disregarded the latest scientific information prepared by an Interagency California Spotted Owl Steering Committee. The Committee included members from the State of California and U.S. Cxovemment, observers from State and local agencies, and private interest groups, including timber industry and environmental group representatives. The Committee formed a scientific advisory team which included Forest Service scientists and prepared a written report titled The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status (the "CASPO" report). 138 The CASPO report concluded that the existing practice of the Forest Service "is not a workable strategy to assure long-term maintenance of spotted owls." CASPO at 15. Furthermore, the Court noted that the CASPO report recommended that the silvicultural practices of the last 100 years be inverted. In efifect, the approach recommended here tends to invert silvicultural practices of the last 100 years. What has been characterized as "top down" logging (concentrating on the largest trees) would become primarily a "bottom up" approach (leaving the largest trees and concentrating on the smaller trees). CASPO at 24. The reason why the Forest Service disregarded the new significaht information is because' the CASPO report concluded that trees over 30" in diameter in Sequoia National Forest should not be harvested and the Forest Service wanted to continue its policies permitting clear cutting and the selective harvesting of the biggest trees. Fortunately, the Court did not agree with the Forest Service and stated that "an approach which 'tends to invert silvicultural practices of the last 100 years is significant" and ordered the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements. It is noteworthy that the conclusions of the Court are not the activism of a "liberal" judge. The Honorable Oliver Wanger was appointed by George Bush. The conclusion of the Coxirt, in a 48 page opinion, reflects a thorough review of the record and an application of federal law. Judge Wanger was extremely well prepared when our opposing counsel (six attorneys, including representatives of the U.S. Attorney's OflEice, the Forest Service and the Timber Industry) and I presented our arguments at a day long hearing. The Judge knew the record, had reviewed the pleadings and asked keen questions. Some of the evidence is particularly pertinent to this hearing because is shows the mismanagement of Sequoia National Forest by the Forest Service. For one example, the Forest Service's own maps were presented which declared a portion of Forest to be core "foraging habitat" for the California Spotted Owl in 1991. Within one year, the Forest Service redrew its maps to allow clearcuts in the (previously) acknowledged foraging habitat area. The Forest Service simply has not made a genuine effort to do its job. It is with good reason that the CASPO Committee has recommended that no trees over 30" in diameter be cut. It is recognized that after 100 years of clear cutting and selectively cutting the largest trees immediate preservation measures are needed to protect old growth dependent species such as the California Spotted Owl and to preserve the forest ecosystem for the Giant Sequoia Groves. There are numerous other sales in the Sequoia that are ripe for litigation because the Forest Service has not done its job and new scientific information is being ignored. Litigation will continue until the Forest Service does its job in a genuine manner and in accordance with law. But there is a better way than litigation - and that is the passage of the Sequoia Preservation Bill. The Forest Service's own experts have abready concluded that tree's over 30" 139 in diameter should not be cut in Sequoia National Forest. It is a small step for the Congress to act to protect all of the forest in addition to the trees 30" and bigger. I ask the Committee members to consider who benefits from the passage of the preservation bill. First, there are the trees themselves which being the largest and some of the oldest living things on earth deserve our respect. Less than 100 years ago Giant Sequoia trees were cut down and broken into small pieces to hold up grape vines in vineyards. I am sure the members of this Committee would agree today that this was a waste of a majestic resource and would oppose it. But, unfortunately, there were not leaders with the foresight to stop the waste at the time. Today is another turning point and in 100 years time (or perhaps much less) future generations may lament the waste of one of this countries great resources, or, hopefully, they will enjoy the splendor and beauty of the Sequoia National Forest when they travel to see and feel the largest living things on earth. Second, the people of California and the rest of the United States will benefit from the recreational use of the forest provided for in the Bill. No one wants to close up the Forest. The central valley is one of the fastest growing areas in California. The people of California need forests they cem visit be it in cabins or campgrounds. Furthermore, the Giant Sequoia trees are destination points for people throughout the United States and the world. The destination, however, will not be appealing if the current harvesting is continued and the groves and siirrounding forests are decimated by clearcuts. The Bill allows for hunting, fishing, camping snowmobiling, and many other activities. Ultimately there is more money to be made by bringing people in by cars than bringing out timber on logging trucks. I would like to finish the same as I do with a jury and as I did with Judge Wanger. Whatever your decision, let the truth be our guide. For too long the Forest Service has disregarded the truth be it through a disregard of new scientific information, or manipulation of their own maps and computer programs to reach their timber goals. As long as there are federal judges the truth will come out. But it will serve all concerned if litigation is averted and this Committee listens to the recommendations of the Forest Service's own experts ~ unrestricted logging in the Sequoia has gone on long and far enough - the remaining large trees need to be preserved both for the benefit of the animals that live there and the millions of people who will spend time there in the years ahead thanks to the foresight of the members on this Committee. 140 Testimonv of Robert E. Wolf on H.R. 2153, Giant Sequoia National Preserve Bill March 11. 1994, House Com. on Agriculture .Mr. Chairman: I am a forester. It was mv good fortune to Darticioate in creating a number of major forest laws, including the Wilderness Act, the Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the .National Forest Management Act of 1976. In working on the 1976 Act I found myself in professional disagreement on some matters with my long-time friend, Congressman George Brown - but I also was in agreement with his views on many issues. I am pleased to be able to give support to his proposal the protect the Giant Sequoias on the National Forests . There are others more experienced in the ecological effects of logging disturbances on the Giant Sequoia who can provide you with more detail. I will concentrate on the financial benefits this bill can provide. My acquaintance with the Sequoia National Forest goes back 35 vears, to 1959. As a professional staff member of the then Senate Interior & Insular Affairs Committee Senator Tom Kuchel , the Republican Floor Assistant, and Senator Clair Engle had me go to the Sequoia. There was a raging controversv over the 29 Million board feet Forest Service "Salmon Creek" timber sale that opened the Kern Plateau to logging. The then existing, but 'now defunct. Mt. Whitney Timber Co., had lost a 45 Million BF sale. Their mill was at Johnsondale in the heart of the Forest. The rationale for the Kern Plateau sale was to sustain Mt . Whitney, and open the heretofore roadless Plateau to logging. I have attached to my statement rav 1959 report. I will later outline losses logging 74,400 acres for 370,000,000 board feet of Kern Plateau timber from 1956 to 1983, as well as losses logging 808 million board feet since 1983. This 11 year period alone cost the Treasury roughly S58.000.000. There is no sign that the future sales will break even. HOW SUBSTANTIAL THESE LOSSES ARE CAN BE APPRECIATED BY REALIZING THAT THE SEQUOIA FOREST CONSUMED IN EARMARKING TIMBER RECEIPTS $2.2 MILLION MORE THAN IT TOOK IN - AND THIS IS BEFORE COUNTING TIMBER APPROPRIATIONS. FOR THE 5 YEARS, 1988-1992 IT COST TAXPAYERS AN ESTIMATED t25,000,000 TO SUBSIDIZE LOGGING 36,500 ACRES ON THE SEQUOIA. THE SIERRA COST WAS $16,500,000 TO LOG 46,700 ACRES. Restraining Sequoia and Sierra National Forest logging will save the taxpayer's money, and, more vital, will protect the unique Giant Sequoias. WHY RESTRAIN NEAR LOGGING NEAR GIANT SEQUOIAS ? Trees, and plants differ from other living things, especially man. Trees can't move from the exact place where they are born. Man has been around barely 2 million vears. The Giant Sequoias originated 10 to 15 million vears ago. People seldom live for 100 years. Individual Sequoias live for as long as 4,000 years. Several date from before the birth of Jesus Christ. Seauoias were here long before man and mammals. Some of the largest Sequoias weigh 12 141 ■ ill ion pounds. They were found across North American and Euro-Asia. There are fossil renains in England and Yellowstone. Chances in climate have shrunk their range to a few hundred thousand acres in the California Sierras. In a paleobotanical sense the Giant Sequoia may persist another 500,000 vears if we leave the sites they occupy relatively undisturbed. Dr. William Harlow, the noted dendrolog i st . pointed out 50 years ago that this tree, which is a single species, "mav be thought of as making its last stand in scattered groves along the middle western slopes of the Sierra. How many more tens of centuries the bigtree might maintain itself is problematic ". The Sequoia have special characteristics that have helped them survive, and there are others that represent genuine threats to their survival. On the 'plus side neither insect nor disease afflict the Sequoia, even in old age. Their bark acts as an. insulation against ground fire. Lightning strikes only individuals at random. Their cones take as much as 20 years to mature. They contain a powdery red pigment that is released with the seeds and aids germination. Their seeds a very small, three thousand seeds equal one ounce. However, the germination rate is very low (15X). Seedling develop a taproot, followed by wide spread lateral roots which act as an anchor. The wood is durable. Trees over 1,000 years are lOOX sound when cut. However, the wood is very brittle, and breakage in felling is high. Their use for lumber and wood products is small. Until the advent of chainsaws, hand felling these trees was a major challenge, a factor that also reduced their logging. On the down side. Sequoia have an extensive FRAGILE system of fibrous lateral roots near the surface. Trees are subject to prematv4re death when this fragile root system is disturbed because the anchorage of the tree is weakened as the tree is also slowly killed. Sequoia grow in association with Red and White Firs, Incense Cedars, and Pines, which help provide a protective environment- Man. whether seeking to cut other species near these trees, or seeking to "improve" the Sequoia are the greatest threat to their existence . Over the millions of years that the Sequoia has existed, climate and man have been their two agents of death. We can't change climatic events. We can change what we do to the few acres of public land these trees occupy. SHOULD NATIONAL FOREST TIMBER BE SOLD WHEN IT LOSES MONEY ? In 1991 Chief Dale Robertson wrote the N.Y. Times: "Since 1952, tree growth... has increased by 67 percent", and "timber , growth on National Forest lands exceeds timber harvest by 55 percent ■ Textbook of Dendrology, Wm. Harlow, 9 195, 1941. ' F.S. letter to A.O. Sulzberger, Publisher. N.Y. Times, Nov. 19,1991. Source, PNW-RB-168. 142 In 1992 President Bush published a brochure before taking a walk in the Sequoias with Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson pointing out: "In the United States, responsible forest conservation is a long- standing tradition. Annual forest growth now exceeds timber harvests by 37 percent, and the total national volume of wood is 25 percent larger than it was in 1952 i These claims rest on Forest Service data . They contend that nationally timber growth vastly exceeds cut and the standing timber inventory has expanded on the Nation's 483 million forest acres, as well as on the 56 million National Forest acres rated "Suitable For Timber Production". With growth exceeding cut and expanding inventories does it make sense to sell National Forest timber when it creates a financial loss to our deficit- ridden Government, or environmental conservatism is our wiser choice. WHY DOES THE FOREST SERVICE SELL TIMBER AT A LOSS? BECAUSE IT PRICES ITS TIMBER BASED ON THE AGENCY ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF THE TIMBER TO A BUYER - NOT THE AGENCY COST TO GROW, MANAGE, PROTECT AND SUPPLY THE TIMBER TO INDUSTRY. The fatal weakness in the Forest Service timber program is that it estimates the value of the timber with the goal of setting an: "...appraised value... based on the operator of average efficiency and ...aimed at a [appraised price] which will interest sufficient purchasers to harvest the allowable cut ....[ while ) providing an adequate margin for profit and risk which will be sufficient to maintain operations over the long run and thus provide a stable market for National Forest timber..." Source F.S. Manual 2420.2. The Forest Service not only fails to set its asking price based on what it costs it, or a typical sustained-yield forest owner, to be a consistent long term grower-supplier-manager of timber - it doesn't know representative sample sale costs, although required by Sec. 6(1) of NFMA of 1976 to track and report such facts. This is a proviso George Brown authored. By pricing its timber based on a perceived need to keep buyers profitable and sell the National Forest Allowable Cut, it also ignores the U.S. Actions For Abetter Environment, White House, Undated, about June 1992, Page 8. Source appears to be Forest Statistics of the U.S. Forest Service. USDA, PNW-RB-168, 1987. The source is PNW-RB-168. The base is cubic feet. However, hardwoods, in large gurplus are combined with softwoods, which show a small surplus. The clainrs are exaggerated when one considers the factors that count. ■"' 143 impact that this policy has on private owners seeking to operate profitable sustained-yield tree farms. Forest Service timt>.*r sold at their Advertised Price, generally has a certain loss. Even when there is bidding, there is no assurance that agency costs will be recovered. This is significant because you will hear testimony from those who secur-.' National Forest timber who do not want the sales curtailed. These are the same people who have hammered on the Forest Service for decades to maintain low Advertised Prices. I understand their point of view. None of us like to pay more. The Forest Service asking price is typically a bargain. Firms seldom bid more than they think the timber is worth to them, despite their claims to the contrary. If a firm does, it made that decision at the bidding table. If it does so constantly, it spells bankruptcy. The failure of the Forest Service to price timber to cover agency costs does not concern them. While .every operation loses money ofi some transactions, none succeed when' it happens overall, year after year, after year. FINANCIAL LOSSES LOGGING 74,400 KERN PLATEAU ACRES - 1956 TO 1984. From 1956-1970 the cut from 9 sales that covered 33,000 acres on the Kern Plateau totaled 178 million BF, a yield of 5,400 BF per acre. These sales produced only S2.53/MBF after taking out purchaser road, reforestation and county payment costs. The Forest Service could not cover its appropriated timber costs with this paltry remainder. 15 sales through 1979 logged 30,000 more acres, yielding 162 million BF, 5.800 BF per acre. The receipts after earmarking were a mere S7.73/MBF, still not close to covering Fores't Service appropriated costs. The situation deteriorated on 9 sales cut in 1980-1984. These logged 11.400 acres, took 29 million BF, 2.600 BF/acre. The financial result was - S2.90/MBF cash deficit after earmarking and before appropriated costs. These 33 sales generated receipts after earmarking at an average of only S4.20/MBF, a mere S21 per acre. These sales failed to come close to covering appropriated fund costs. One has only to realize that at an employee paid S20.000 a year would eat up these per acre net receipts in 2 hours on the job to understand the financial weakness of the timber program. The normal assumption is that when an area is first roaded for logging, net receipts may be low, but they will improve with time. The Kern Plateau financial record worsened as time marched on. The Sequoia shows has been heavily logged for 50 years. The record for the past 11 years shows the same grim financial picture - LOSSES. The Sierra's losses are severe, but not as large. FOR THE 11 YEARS, 1983-1993, THE SEQUOIA SHOWS A -$2.67/'MBF NET AFTER EARMARKING, BEFORE COUNTING TIMBER PROGRAM APPROPRIATIONS Forest-level timber receipt analyses have been run for the 11 years 4 144 s 6 43 s 31 44 s 11 63 $ 15 61 1983-1993. The Sequoia, with an ASO of 97 Million BF cut 76% of its ASO. The total cut was 808.4 million BF. Gross timber receipts, including 55,197,000 worth of timber traded for roads built by loggers, were $50,478,000. But this is an illusion. The Forest Service ate up all of these receipts and more. Dollars Per MBF Cut Gross Timber Receipts: $ 50,478,000 $ 62.44 Earmarked Receipts: Purch. Road Credit S 5.197,000 K.V. Fund S 25,420,000 Salvage Fund S 9,403,000 25% County Payments S 12,619,000 Total Earmarked S 52,639,000 t 65.11 NET REMAINING TO COVER APPROPRIATIONS - $ 2,161,000 - $ 2.67 It does not take a financial wizard to see that when a Forest earmarks over 100% of timber receipts for timber sale created costs, there is no way that it can begin to cover its total timber costs. With 11 year estimated timber appropriated costs in the $55,000,000 range, a subsidy of over $70/MBF was needed to run the Sequoia timber program. The Sierra National Forest, part of which would be in the bill's Preserve, requires a subsidy on the order of S40/MBF to run its timber program. A reduced timber program on lands surrounding the remnants of the Giant Sequoia would be financially prudent. I have attached the 11 year record for each Forest to my statement. How much of these two Forests should be in a Giant Sequoia Reserve is a matter for the Committee to decide. Based on the record the chances are that virtually the entire area the bill encompasses are infected by subsidized timber sales. Therefore you are not being asked to give up NET TREASURY INCOME i,e., PROFIT to save the unique Giant Sequoia. If one were selecting situations where scaling back the timber program made ecological sense, eliminating logging in the environs of the Giant Sequoia should rank at the top of the list. The modest reduction in the wood that flows from logging the conifers around the Sequoia will have a local impact . The Sequoia has a growth potential of 92 cubic feet of wood per acre per year (458 Board Feet). In 50 years stands should have at least 20,000 BF per acre. The average cut these past 5 years is only 8.800 BF . The Sierra has a more modest potential (66 CF or 328 BF ) . The Forest Service data on acres cut these past 5 years gives figures of doubtful accuracy. In 1992 it would appear the cut was 264,000 BF per acre and in 1993 102,000 BF per acre, both clearly illogical. These reported outcomes suggest that the agency needs to examine the foundation on which even the current cuts are based. 145 COMMUNITY STABILITY You will hear pleas to avoid enacting this bill to assure "community stability". There are two missins ingredients in the "community stability" concept . 1. Private forest land owners are not required to or expected to use levels of cutting that can be sustained. 2. Timber companies never have to make a binding make a commitment to stay in business. It is onlv the Forest Service that is urged to throw all "financial common sense to the wind to meet an Allowable Sale Quantity. However, that is not what the NFHA specifies. The 1897 Act provided: "For the purpose of preserving the living and growing timber and promoting the younger growth... the Secretary ... may cause to be designated and appraised so much of the DEAD, .MATURED, OR LARGE GROWTH OF TREES... as may be compatible with the utilization of the forests thereon" NFMA provides a stricter standard, dealing with the issue of compatibility with the utilization of the forest in several other sections of the Act: The Secretary ... shall limit the sale of timber from each national forest to a quantity EQUAL OR LESS THA.V a quantity which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained -yield basis." (emphasis added). (16 USC 1611) It is the Forest Service that determines the sale rate; but the purchasers determine the rate of cutting. Variations between sale estimates and actual volume result in the cut seldom being a match for sales over a long period. Also the agency does not publish realistic uncut timber under contract data. Thus it isn't clear whether sales cut more than the estimate or the trends in uncut timber under contract. The 11 year Sequoia sale level averages 65 million BF versus a cut at 74 million BF. The actual cut has been only 75% of the 97 MMBF Allowable Sale Level. The volume cut ran 13X above the volume sold, well below the ASQ. The receipts ran 2% under the value of timber sold. The Sierra's cut averaged 124 million BF. The ASQ just dropped from 125 MMBF to 88 MMBF. The cut was 41X above the current ASQ. The average volume cut also ran 22X over the 101 MMBF volume sold, while receipts ran 1 7X over estimated value. The Sequoia cut, 64 MMBF for 1988-1992 and 46 MMBF for 1993 could drop 35 to 45 MMBF below the ASQ and not be a real reduction from actuality. The Mt. Whitney Lumber Company was located at Johnsondale in the heart & 146 of the Sequoia for many years. It is a classic example of the inability of the Forest Service to keep a firm in business. When it operated the Forest Service appraisals showed log hauls of from 1 to 30 miles, averaging around 15 miles. Later appraisals were to Inyokern on the East side of the Forest, where Louisiana-Pacific had a mill, distances of 40 -45 miles, as well as to Terra Bella some 50-75 miles to the West of the Forest, where Sierra Pacific's mill is, with a few appraised with log hauls even to Redlands, 175 miles away. The Forest Service uses log haul distances to the mill it considers most likely will get the sale, not necessarily the nearest mill or the mill in a community it thinks it is sustaining. With log haul costs in the Sl.OO/mi/MBF range, adding 25 miles to this cost reduces Advertised Rates by this amount.. All other things being a mill nearer the timber has this much advantage in bidding. * Mt. Whi'tney bought Sequoia Forest timber for years under sealed bids, paying the low appraised price, or a bit more. It had the advantage of "position", being located near tlie timber. In 1955 the American Timber Co. submitted a sealed bid for a 45 million board foot sale that was a few cents higher than Mt . Whitney's. This sale was in Mt. Whitney's ''back yard". To assure that Mt. Whitney would never be surprised by a sealed bid, the initial and later Kern Plateau sales used oral auctions. When there are large well- financed firms oral auctions permit them to dominate the Forest market. The record on the Kern Plateau sales suggests this has been the case. Mt. Whitney later bought out American taking over the 45 MMBF sale it had lost. None of the efforts by the Forest Service to sustain Mt. Whitney at Johnsondale succeeded. As you are told about the need to keep the Sequoia timber flowing to support communities, even though it requires a large taxpayer supported subsidy, keep in mind the saga of Mt. Whitney and American Timber companies. Now most of the timber purchased goes to mills well outside the Forest. The agency still has not found a way under our system of competitive enterprise to keep private firms employing workers and operating when they decide it is not profitable. OTHER ASPECTS 1. Management Plan, Sec 7(d), page 13. The bill calls for a Plan to be published within 2 years. The bill needs to be examined to assure that other directions that should be in the Plan aren't triggered to be started before the Plan is adopted. 2. Roads and Trails, Sec. 7(e), pages 14-15. The direction to determine the road network and its use makes sense. Whether there should be a flat prohibition on any further roads should be deferred until the Plan is adopted. Some minor shifts as well as new roads may be desirable, which the bill language would prevent. The Service does not publish data by Forest on the road system by class of road and maintenance and use status. One approach would be to maintain all current Arterial and 147 Collector roads, while stopping the expansion of "local" roads durintf the Plan revision to an agreed upon level. The bill might direct not more than a certain amount of road system expansion when the Plan is produced. 3. Regeneration, Sec. 7(g), page 17. It is assumed that this bill language contemplates both natural and artificial regeneration. Whether it is necessary to direct that the work be completed in 5 years should be measured by eoals, the area involved, whether natural regeneration is to be used, and the cost. Since commercial timber production is not contemplated in the Preserve, the goal should be to assist natural regeneration that produces the desired ecological outcome. The Plan should define these goals. Operations should be measured against them. It may well be that natural regeneration should prevail in many cases. 4. Fire Management, Sec. 7(i), page 17-18. It needs to be made clear whether "eliminating fire control activities", may lead to creating catastrophic level fires. Fire management and control are not opposing ideas. Research should chart whether limited control burning may continue to play a useful role. 5. Tinber Cutting Sec. 7(k), pages 18-19. At page 19 the bill proposes a 500 vard "no cut" zone. These would be 3,000' diameter circles embracing 150 acres. A 220 yard (660 ft.] radius would embrace 31 acres. You may wish to seek the advice of silvics experts as to whether this smaller area provides an adequate buffer for research cuttings and the few cuttings that the fire plan or emergencies may suggest. It is not clear whether the fire plan cutting concept rules out cutting for insect, or disease. At pages 18-19 timber cutting is not permitted and the timber is removed from the Allowable Sale Quantity Base for the Forest. Further, no commercial sales are to be permitted. There are two exceptions: timber may be cut for scientific study or if consistent with a fire plan the Scientific Advisory Board approves by a 2/3rd majority. Only 1/20 of 1% of the area per year (50 acres per 100,000 acres), may be assigned to scientific cutting. This restriction raises 2 points. Is such a tight limit on scientific study cutting needed when it takes a 2/3rds vote by the Board to authorize it? Why is there no limit on fire plan cutting? The need for scientific study to warrant cutting should be examined. The 2/3rds vote would seem to provide a safeguard against over use. You may want to consider the same procedure for fire plan operations. The Board also ought to be empowered to make recommendations on whether commercial use could be made of material cut. NFMA permits the Secretary to sell "trees, portions of trees, or forest products" from National Forests. The Forest Service could conduct the selected felling operation, decking the 8 148 logs to sell in log form. This would provide a control over logging impacts on the soil and the remaining trees. This mav be desirable. The current language would compel in all instances that trees killed by fire, insects or disease to remain standing, be felled and left, or be destroyed rather than be used commercially. This may be an unduly tight restriction. There often is the claim that salvage sales may be needed. Trees die on a scattered endemic basis or a more concentrated epidemic basis. It seems to me that the Scientific Advisory Board the Act creates should be the group that advises the Forest Service on the desirability of any specific cutting plan within the above procedures, including whether the Service should remove the loss. If there is a good reason to do so the logs should be sold. So long 'as their are tight safeguards that provide ample buffers that* prevent potential damage to Giant Sequoia root systems, it may be sound in some situations to rpmove trees that have been cut. 6. Buyout Of Existing Timber Contracts, Sec 7(k2), page 19. There are some existing timber contracts in the area the bill encompasses. Unless these contracts permit cutting trees within 660' of Giant Sequoia areas, it may be well to let these contracts run their course. If Sequoias would be impacted the contracts could be either amended or canceled to stay away from Sequoias, whichever is most appropriate. Where no cutting has occurred, cancellation may be appropriate unless there is no threat to Sequoias. It would seem reasonable to me, even though these sales will cost the taxpayers money to complete, to taper down the timber program rather than cutting it off completely. 6. Grazing Permits, Sec. 7 (n), page 21 The bill uses the term "Grazing Rights". These are revocable permits. There are two alternatives. One is to cancel the permit. The other is to require the permittees to operate their grazing use so that none occurs within 660 feet of a Giant Sequoia grove. The Secretary's authority to regulate grazing when he finds it desirable from a conservation standpoint stems from the 1897 Act. Grazing is also a subsidized use. It should not be permitted to adversely impact the purposes of the Reserves. The Committee should carefully weigh the propriety of buying out permits versus directing that peimittees keep stock out of areas where they will damage the Giant Sequoia environment or other resources. 7. Payments to Local Governments, Sec. 8, page 21-24. The proposal that a tax equivalence payment be determined, and made, offers a realistic way to make proper contributions to support of local government functions. There is no relationship between 25% payments under 16 U.S.C. 500, PILT (31 U.S.C. 6901), and tax equivalence. Recent payments have been: 149 Sequoia Sierra Acres 1. HI, 73-1 1.309,013 Per Acre Dollars Per Acre Dollars 1991 S 0.77 $ 880,804 $ 2,34 83,057.610 1992 s 1.59 $1,817,900 S 2.37 §3,106,462 1993 s 1.93 $2,200,635 S 2,68 $3,503,131 Under 16 U.S.C. 500 State Legislatures decides the funds assigned to education vs. roads. All National Forest acres are used to determine the per acre, payment . Payments are based on authorized receipts, timber being roughly 90X '. Under the peculiar way Federal funding is handled, the balance left in the unencumbered account, "National Forest Fund, Timber" need not be sufficient to defray the 25% payments. Thus despite that fact that there was only $1,378,089 deposited in the "National Forest Fund, Timber" in 1993, the standard calculation would have the Sequoia pay out 52,157,648 generated by t imber . My 11 year table outlining the National Forest Fund Balance Left After Earmarking shows timber related county payments greater than the actual payments from all receipts for the Sequoia for 1989-1993. This occurs because an unnoticed law (58 Stat 227 1 permitted the Service to skim $1,047,530 off the top of receipts to use for land acquisition. This had the effect of reducing 25X payments by a total of $261,837 for these 4 years. Attached is Table 3 which depicts the calculated and actual 25% payments for the two Forests for 1984-1993. permitting seeing the Sequoia and Sierra situations . As the basic tables show and this table reinforces, the Forest Service is able to earmark receipts for Purchaser Road Credit. K,V. and Salvage, as well as take funds "off the top" for land acquisition, and make 25% pavments, even though this eats up over 100% of the Sequoia receipts. Yet it can pretend that this presents no case for fiscal restraint. The 1993 actual payments from the Sequoia on a per acre basis were 2.5 times those in 1991. For these years the Sierra payments rose only 15%. 1990 was the peak year for Sierra payments. They were 3.3 times greater, than 1984 's. On a per acre basis ($4,35 1 they were 5.5 times those from the Sequoia ($0.79). There is no logic or equity to the payments. Fresno county Timber Accounts are 3 earmarked accounts, [1] K,V,, 12 1 Salvage, 131 Tbr. Purch. Road Credit (a nonmoney trade of timber for roads), and a nonearmarked account (4! "National Forest Fund, Timber". There are 6 Nontimber accounts are Grazing, Land Use, Special Use, User Fees, Power and Minerals (excluding the bulk of mineral receipts which are collected by USDI under the Mineral leasing Act of 1920). 14J "National Forest Fund, Timber", and the 5 of the nontimber accounts are not earmarked. In theory these are available to finance the 25% payments. 10 150 has 131,000 Sequoia acres and 856,000 Sierra acres. Payments for each Forest are based on the proportion of the specific Forest in each County. Their is no logic to such widespread differences. The illogical consequences do not end with the 25% payments. There are two additional "tax" payments. Under PILT (31 USC 6901), because the payments are greater than PILT's SO. 75 acre base, these Forests got an additional SO.lO/acre. The Sequoia counties got $14,173 per year and the Sierra counties got 13,090 per year. The California Possessory Interest Timber Tax Law is the basi^ for most of the taxes paid on privjite forest land and timber. There is a small annual bare land tax, with the main tax secured when timber is cut. Because this is a "possessory interest" style law, the one who cuts timber must pay the tax. This arrangement levies the same -tax on National Forest timber that is levied on private timber. The Forest Service lowers the price of timber sold by a set amount to cover the tax paid by the logger . My estimate is that the recent Sequoia average cut of 64 MMBF paid around yield taxes on the order of $250,000 per year, while the Sierra 129.5 MMBF cut paid around $520,000. The private timber tax burden appears to be about 15% of the Federal 25% plus PILT timber tax burden. Over the past several years the yield timber tax been lowered by an estimated 75%. The Forest Service has paid a fluctuating, but generally climbing 25% payment, and its timber bears the cited double taxation . These data suggest that CBO's estimate of the effects of tax equivalence payments replacing the current Federal costs may have underestimated the cost saving by adoption of Section 8 of the bill. The concepts in Section 7 deserve to be tested on a trial basis on both Forests - applying it to the Preserve lands as well as the balance of the Forest. The present system of Federal payments in-lieu of taxes is an illogical, contradictory jungle. If enacted, provision should be included in the law for an annual report to Congress by the Comptroller General outlining the results of application. As matters now stand there are several payment systems applicable to the National Forests, none of which has a sound underpinning. SUMMARY The Giant Sequoias deserve to be protected in a manner that minimizes human disturbance of their shrinking habitat. H.R. 2153 offers a way to The Yield Tax schedule in was Ponderosa Pine '82 = $14.61/M, •91 = $4.53; Sugar Pine "82 = $15.92/M, '91 = $4.54/N; White/Red Fir '82 = $8.37, '91 = S0.76/M; Incense Cedar "82 = $9.96/M, '91 = $1.92/M. Unadjusted average 1982 = S12.22/M vs. 1991 = $3.20/M which is a 75% reduction in the private timber tax burden. 11 151 secure this goal, save money by reducing money-losinij timber sales, and freeing up these funds for ecologic management that does not threaten these Sequoia. Whether all 442,425 acres need to be in the Preserve, the Committee can consider. You should be aware that under the current style of management, logging these lands has cost far more than has been received in cash - or the value of timber assets traded for roads. If a smaller Preserve is selected, the Forest Service should be required to make a comprehensive site and soil analysis so that logging on these lands is directed toward sites that can grow timber at no cost to the taxpayers, while applying ecologic management. If it is concluded that some lands that can't grow timber on a positive return basis should remain in the sale area base, the Service should be directed to select several areas by average site so that it can develop a strategy for defining least cost - most benefit subsidies. Each sale action should show that it is less costly and more effective than securing the desired resource result directly. The Sequoia National Forest is a classic example of the 40 Forests that eats up over lOOX of its timber receipts. The Sierra, is a classic example of the 60 Forests where receipts after earmarking are sufficient to offset only l/3rd of appropriated timber costs. For 10 years the Forest Service has mumbled about dealing with below-cost sales. The financial record shows that both Forests have high cost-negative return timber programs. Within the general framework of the overall agency budget, the relative appropriation level should be maintained for each Forest with direction to implement the Giant Sequoia Preserve as this Committee may create it, and to test changes in management style. Maintenance of the proportionate funding of recent years will created an incentive to fairly test useful innovations. Because of the overall interest in environmental management in California, these two Forests would be useful candidates for testing ways to devise new systems. As used in the 1960 Act the "multiple use" definition says, among other things, that the Forest Service is not required to secure: "the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output." There are those who argue that "greatest dollar return" is the sanction for losing money. However, the common meaning of "return" is "profit after all costs". MUSY does not provide a sanction for losing money. On the other hand, the definition clearly directs: "that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the 12 152 land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, (16 U.S.C. 531) Multiple-Use is realized by applying a wide range of approaches. Preservation of the Giant Sequoias is part of the multiple-use doctrine. Finally, I would note that these Forests would be useful places to apply Cong. Brown's Section 6 (1) of NFMA, which requires representative sample costs for the timber business. The Service has totally failed to use these requirements in law since 1976. Enclosures : 1. 2 page Table, 11 Year ASR Receipt record for Sequioa. 2. 2 page Table, 11 Year ASR Receipt record for Sierra. 3. Table 3, 10 year 25% payment record. 4. 1959 Analysis of Kern Plateau Controversy, Sequoia National Forest, by Robert E. Wolf 5. 1985 analysis of Kern Plateau timber sales, 1956-1984. seqtest . doc (Attachments follow:) 13 153 ^ 9 ^ r-' aT — 5? » esT ff> X » ^ x' V o p- ■• X — —r-(0 — © — — r*?** — ^^'^'^'^ w 3 !-) 00 — ^ »ft 1 7M M — lA n (C M O tO » S2 i t — M — W — O f^ f^ — Ift — — ■ i i iSS^-S^-S i c d c S-:- 8 4 45 «r-O(Q«0r)9CMXXtA _. OD — netnN^r)0(->eo ££S sss CM O V ^ M : S =•» — ei = ff>* ) fsi in ▼ « rj c ▼ csi (^ r> •F ?i o ▼ I iG © * * « !^ 5 tn X ■ • X X r- — e ■ I- rf> p? n ^ — — « 0_ — • « — rj V N B O ift — r- •- — Pi * — — — • r^o^dxo — •ftcMQ— r-. "x^2 i Q.Tacoascc"?JxVxwi©r*flor^»'' t. — cjnw~CM©o — »xr)c*oc — »o < ^ csip-ox'^oi'jn*— xt*?»o — = -z c -----J-:------'©---- 3 E 9) N tfi 0 tn ▼ n £0- S r>©r)Mr- — O^WUSK) ua V^tAX-^V^oicoMco *; »cjn©«/>»rtr-*n^ — flD Ci o r- r; 2 »' « n p* «fi © — — ?* o ce o « 5- r4f^O«xtfito^rt--o» o©oo©x©«t*^^ WM«*«>Mxr;0©7)r:tn — — p- ?i * * « 0- C»Wt-«C«©«-W 3 8©©©9^^s}©ne 000©©tA^i^©c4(D xt»— rfi^r4Xt'^ — ^*^2^ — — >f XierTsrcs'i^Ixr^^p-© ©«rtx ■--— iMffi^XOX^MtOCM — 5'i I ^* ^ ^ ^ »A «M *» ^% ^ mm ^ ^ ^ t ;:; £ X * X CM ■ 3» ^ — ©^ d «o «r 1 T ?^ — r» cJ ' ■ ^ r — r^ «« fj ?J ^J CM O « fl S ' «» M •• ^ . • f N — — riC4?jm^ — "X r: run ; p- 5 ■ »fc ta ae 3 e ti c 1- V c *)p-f-»xr ? u. E 0 k £ > < CM > "T 21 w*) ■^ C X X m © tT tA 'd : : r« to X i» «»«•«• * Z ■ )s XXXXXXX^S»A 9% 9t 9v r. 7. s*. 7: A » A a> 5 c ; v: 1. X 154 a -> z ' 3 O O < I _: ^ o 1- > a. ^ 00 (D 00 CM n CO m n c^ 91 O) 2g 00 eo •V 9 a a a a z c c c c eo CO c e CO to irt ifl O rt m O -v in N o , *o rj *-* ^ pg o * CO t^ N V ^ -- c — « a o 3 cr I « CD >- E V. dCD ^t«C0<£(S9>O)^^^^^-N 00^^ ■« ^Zut^iDcyJTrrJuJinoSoirJTr tot^c- 5 7? i> a. CO vcorstotoocD^c^jco-^oint^cg eoinr)OOCMCOOCOO>mQOU5" rt c^^ < ^ fc« CO lA o ift CO u^ o po to eg Vo p^(^>rt *j ", t6flac*pac*mnr-c^j rico to c^^t^rr "" to^^coffioi'^tor-m^^cM^to cd ao)coot*?c^^tot^a)t^oeotoo Q2 ^0^-^oico--r:minc^p^ooo^^ ^ O ** c^^irTtnin tcooase^toifioe^V^^ Oj o o o ta r- ^M ■» rj «J > 3 o 01 u ^J X M 3 03 3 o N CM *J ci: < »« >« X X to op o> to •r o a o ^ W CO CO to < < < < V. •. o «_ O o 0 o X X X X : 00 oi x; w a: '5 3 a « CO A : o CO 3 CJ I. E a) a. J 9> «( a , cgoooo^trj^cjoccxn 05^5 2 cotoM'viftinooc^odtoe^ p^O^ .^^t-^csjrt^»to^totn^oco m^to ^tOtO^tOtOlACO^O^^OlO? cv)OCJtnc>ae-^-^come*vvCMeo ■~ to *"t"^'^''i'?.''i'H''l°'itt^- 'V^' •f i — 05 in f^ o V to t-T oT TT -^ — — ir5t~— 0)002 t.(j3 0'^°l~*o — t^oocoev^'Tv o t^ S' y _ -^O oClo rTcNJOino^^r^tOOOr^CO^ ■o 3<3)0)o>cot-r-tomto;o-w0c-ooto E -J X < 3 _co 5- o o 6-Q. og to n eg 00 o 3 CJ c-s go — o -J « t~ t> M -J tn j: <71 ^6 I a ■3 CO er^tfitor^XOsO'^cgro xxxxxxxo^oioo) O > XtJ) < ' J. „ _ „ _ „ -I i>> a < u u o > _: V3 (- -S — to Ct] 155 i i 4 i ri •» rfi < ^ o«rtOMX — — ▼ — ?'^««rtP-r4 2; ■ — » — . ^. ~ * ^ * * •'i f^ ^ * ^ * f*! £ ^ i j» X* V "T c rT — »** — t-^ o' * *n p" f- i „ r*r-O3^xcsi(-:M««0OOcM*0«^ f- CM i^ c c c c c 8 30 (C M OB 9t (O f (S (n CM u^ — (O • ^3 C — -CTMO^^*»-e*OD»ioor*«*f»ito ^ -M^c^ox — c* — xp»^t»— r^x^ ti - • « o* r-" «ft t»-" V ?J r: rfi *n o X p^ f» cJ £ I. «AXXXr-vr-9>xxor«oO>9t — — .f'p^x'cexx'sfsrxxxc'xooaj «* T BO ^ H > in tn ^ lA (C X : — c-oc4r-x«MX3^t^«o»»nv .-■ — MX«XCt*?>^'*'" — "'^-'^ — i i3 «^. ▼ f^ o^ rf:^ — ▼^ »n X ^ X_ O f^ c^ < _ innr^O'rnOifl CM tXOO — ▼tn*»---"iV^»rtVeMtt0^r>o Z _»0 — OXrsOSSM^P-r-ttNW"- — i♦to^JVxr^xVrfi^f^OxOooOr^ 5. ^Nr:cM — r-xx — ^r^— 'C^StnOt^ ■ c^wwe^OcT — p^cM — — ri"©— xV CM O) tn 9) lA X o e* -» S " c « rt • "" 3 OX-* X X • . "^" 0 CO 7 vrvvXVOXmWvO S CM — — — — CMejncMrirf* n « n O ▼ Oj V X oc ggsssssssss ~S? _ tft ffi ^ s - * * xt-p-xffi — p-cMflcxcn otin«AXtnxc^'-no «»«»•»«»«»«•— — — — CM g£2 •• «» — R •«• 3 - xxw*- — — o:^oxxr)»n«-x ~ x»nxor»r;»ftc»-o-j— r)xC3» ~ c oor^p-'^xx'^cMO* — xp*»np- 0^'^x — x^CP^r-x — — x-vQXO — *M'je-;ov«rX»rteMXOCi3iX* OkQ«»«*«»«»4 » T-j ^ CM ^a m ;XNXXXnv X IS — F^v(£xr« ta XiA«a7)U)9ir4 O 3i*eMirrxncoof j jCM o»eMt^."Mr:ox e Co •• ^^ rg V^ X tf? -^ xr^j>o^Xrf;vp-ci«rc-e*ox Xir>CXX«nM7-XMXi.'^X9t — knCivXr-xesic — vt*xy. ^9* VrTVi/i — — o — tM5''rM~*5»xx ?*CM>cOX'Vf*Xrf;9iCMOc^^ 'n»» — ■0(St.';rtrf:r;f^^^r;*-eM X o 9: 31 ■ — »n — SOOOQX'^Avtne OOOOP- — en — 'r — «B«9 doddoNonxc^V M^ «•«»«•«•«•«•«»— CMV9I > 5 Z •»«•«•<• > 3 « b. CO eMN — 9»n«CM — ^ — — ©d«rtWiMt*-eM*^3--x ' ▼••CMCMCM — rt(MriTMX . ■» u X X tn I -r n M (ft : • V ■■£ n ^. n \5; -i ocort-;x9>r:r:c;."MCtftfr* ■— p* — — r;xrMCX*ft — rsr^w^tr. t xr-i^XvXSr;x '^ — — 3X — 1/i — xrtr:;::-^ — Xr-xaivcf-. f»-x-i>i»rt r; T tr X r- X : ^J r. p- M » ■- ^ p- — X M p- y. 5^ 9> 99t9t3i9i9iA9>7i9>9) t •« = - e ▼ t; - l£i 156 *.« O » ?J ai TT in Ci. o ^ X -^ rsi — — in CO < to •W CM o o 0> a -> S \ on — m OS ^ -* « a 2 3 IS CM to -X O O u < — ^ It s a a a a CM *-i C c a. n &- in-*^t^;orsir«-c*>;ocM^ r>incM affl xcMcMO^^ — e^ioc^t*^^ ao '^ T ^Zo-^coG6oc*5t-o6Q6odin(0 o^o > ■ •2 *- •» ^* «» *« — -- - a ^ o. r^ £S£ JC } -^ "" a P o u — L. 0 V X C/1 u V w ^ X X .- 3 CO CM in a is tj CM d L. •J o V 91 £< « CO »e »« X »( ^ C^ P» ^ ^ ^ -v t* — — «» — CM «»•» — O a 9) o OiCMinoiOiioto^Oi— ««^cninpo CMOXXCOCMr-IOVOIOmCMt^CM ooTTC^inin^ — c»cMt»inpo-^eo — (g **.•**.-.»»■.... Xu c* — ^t^incMXXOi^rOJXinc-^ I atain^x — cnoixoie^in^inooc- *J^^C0-^05^31^^«r^t^C^t^P^e^CMCMIOO) *j O lo^^^c^— '^Ovr-f^— oiin*^ coo 4»4*«»4*«»-"'-*CM«»4*^0«»«'»^ o OOO' (J < to to to to < < < < to 0 0 0 0 Q 2 — ,rfNmoc^irtmtfldM^^o^^-oa> -3 3 < oCT>rocNjano^*rtcDiO"-0'^^ A _ ^ V"^ w .-^ ^>* \M - ^ t^ . > « too "" "" """"" > o «rf «-> o w 3 3 o oT CM r Cu 87 C 92 C 1993 >■ 1 S o to z 3 u u 1. ti 9; . to E . X fj - ;; ^ 0 A = f tti J. & ^ CM fc_ 0 M e. e I a c*mir5ai've>JCN)r>NOOc^ocsJoo ■^ — X cvac^-^rOintoot-^oi — CO — r-xoo 'Ji Q «»«»«»«*4»— — r^«» — — ■— — ** — r, »Xr;r;tOfOrilr5^ovdX:£CM^J i C — — ooicsirjtDr- — — rjfOO _=- „ u r^^intoc^xOJO— CMn a xxxxxxxc^oioso) 4» OiOOlOlOsOlOlOOlOlOi < 3 _ to 0 U t- a. o m 00 00 o n o c o 11 Yr Tol llYt Ave Av 83-87 Av 88-92 c <'- O to < to— o tfto to Ho »; >" ~ - J) (O •» 3 o tj Sto _, X 2 Sjin ■£ CM >. — .— 4j CO X £«. <« ^ 3 CM ^ to C U 0 >• _: to (- J -J a III 157 wr?<.e: 3 »tv»is of Actual 25\ Countv p,ivm«nt \ t. Comotit^d Xmount ilvsij of P»r<:enta«e of Receipts For Countv Pavmenti Generated BY Timber Pro«r«m For 1989-1993 Sequoia Allocated Sl.047.350 in Receipts " Off The Too" For Land Acquisition. Which Reduced 25X Pavments bv 1261.837. Seouoia 1984-1993. 10 Years Pavments in 1993 3 Times Those in 1984. Pavment in 1992 Was S937.0OO Greater Than 1991 1984 1883 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Total ASR Base 52.702.966 S3.938.529 S6.207.199 S4.224.737 54.313.534 54.928.679 53.724.406 53.848.217 $7,569,249 $9,014,543 Calc. 25X S675.742 5984.632 51.551.800 51.056.184 S 1.078.864 51.232.170 5931.102 5962.054 51.892.312 52.253.636 Actual 25X 5675.742 5984.632 51.551.800 51.056,184 51.078.884 51.205.744 5904.351 5880.804 $1,817,901 52.200.636 Difference 50 50 1501 50 $0 526.426 526.731 581.250 S74.411 553.000 Timber Part 5590.130 5884.074 51,452.045 5955.992 5975.529 51.127.140 5828.706 $842,226 51.796.254 $2,157,648 Pent Tbr 25X Act. Base Rec. 87X 90X 94X 91X 90X 9IX 89% 88X 95X 96X 52.702.968 53.938.528 56.207.200 54.224.736 54.315.536 54.822.976 53.617.404 53.523.216 57,271.604 58.802.544 550.474.059 512.618.515 $12,356,678 $261,837 511.609.744 $5,047,406 51.261.851 51.235.668 526.184 51.160,974 92X Off Too SO 50 SO SO SO. 5105.703 5107.002 5325.001 5297,645 $211,999 51,047.350 Act. Per Ac Pavment $0.59 $0.86 SI. 36 50.93 50.94 $1.06 50.79 $0.77 51.59 51.93 51,08 Sierra 1984-1993. 10 Years Payment in 1990 3 Times Great er Tti an In 1984. Pavment in 1990 51.087.000 Greater Than I n 1989 Act. Per Ac ASR Base Calc. 25X Actual 25X Difference Timber Part Pent Tbr Payment 1984 56,837.597 51.709.399 $1,709,399 50 SI, 575,629 92X 51.31 1885 57.771.135 $1,942,784 $1,942,784 $0 51,801.026 93X $1.48 1986 510,633.211 $2,658,303 $2,658,303 $0 52,544,692 96X $2,03 1987 $10,150,841 52.537.710 52,537.710 $0 52,435,785 96X $1.94 1988 512.131.984 53.032.996 $3,032,996 SO 52,919,525 96X 52.32 1989 S18.437.490 54.609.373 $4,609,373 50 54,461.174 97X S3.52 1990 522.786.234 $5,696,558 55,696,358 $0 55,533.882 97X $4.35 1991 512.230.443 53.057.611 53,057,611 50 52.884.412 94X 52,34 1992 512.425.847 53.106.462 53,106.462 50 52.935.170 94X 52.37 1393 $14,012,526 $3,503,131 53.503,131 JO $3,294,744 94X 52.68 Total 5127.417,308 531.854.327 531.854,327 50 530,386.039 Aver. 512.741.731 53.185,433 53.185.433 $0 53.038.604 95X 52.43 Robert E. Wolf. 3245 Bowen Road. St. Leonard MD.. 20685 (410-586-17671 seqa«.wk3 on HNR disc (Additional accachments are held In the conmlttee files.) 80-635 0-94 -6 /. / 158 U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources H. R. 2153 The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act Comments of Dr. Philip W. Rundel Department of Biology and Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024 March 5, 1994 Giant Sequoias as a Species Exploration of the Sierra Nevada by American "Mountain Men" in the mid 19th century brought news to the world of a remarkable tree, a Giant Sequoia, of unbelievable size and beauty. Small groves of these trees growing in the montane zone along the west slope of the mountains quickly became a magnet for visitors from all over the world who travelled to California to see these unbelievable giants. In the simpler times of this era with seemingly inexhaustible natural resources, little thought was given to resource management or protection of the Giant Sequoia resource. Roads were laid, hotels built, and individual Giant Sequoias cut or stripped of their bark for shows. State laws protecting large giant sequoias from harm were passed in California in 1873, but largely ignored with extensive lumbering carried out in several grove areas at the end of the century. Protection of Giant Sequoia resources became an increasingly important goal as lumbering continued, and public pressure brought to bear by John Muir, the Sierra Club, and others led to the establishment of National Park preserves for the preservation of Giant Sequoias and surrounding forest communities on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. Sequoia and General Grant National Parks were established in 1890 were established largely for this purpose and Yosemite National Park also protected three smaller Giant Sequoia groves. Subsequent additions to these parks up through recent years has helped improve this protection by adding larger landscape units to these preserves. Today, the 75 existing groves of Giant Sequoia are largely in public ownership, but the policies of resource management being applied to these groves has varied greatly between government agencies. Eariy resource management of Giant Sequoias was largely focused on fire protection. Since fires were thought to be potential causes of mortality to large specimen trees, and produced what were considered aesthetically unpleasant fire scars on the fibrous red bari< of Giant Sequoias, every attempt was made to eliminate fire as factor in the Giant Sequoia groves. By the 1960*s, however. 159 ecologists began to note the huge build-up of flammable fuels in the understory of the Giant Sequoia groves. Dead limbs, logs, standing tree snags all littered the ground surface, and dense thickets of young white fir saplings were widespread. The appearance of this understory was sharply different from that described by John Muir and others in the last century and portrayed in early photographs. Then, the understory appeared more open and dead fuels were much less obvious. Worse, giant sequoia seedlings which had once been relatively common seemed now rare. These observations led ecologists to question the fire protection policies of resource management, and develop a clearer understanding of the importance of fire as an ecosystem factor in the establishment, growth, and survival of Giant Sequoias. Giant Sequoias and Fire The establishment of Giant Sequoia' is closely tied to fire, and this factor has been significant in the evolution of many life history traits of Giant Sequoia. The thick bark of Giant Sequoia makes mature trees relatively immune to the damaging effects of fire. Furthermore, the convective heat of ground fires is a • critical element in causing the release of Giant Sequoia seeds from closed cones high in the canopies of mature trees. Seeds falling onto bare mineral soil germinate readily and grow rapidly, ensuring the next generation of Giant Sequoias. Recent studies have shown that relatively infrequent intense fires are particularly important in the establishment of dense groupings of Giant Sequoias. This effect is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1 , where the small x's in mixed conifer forest starids after fire indicate the location of dense groups young Giant Sequoias where fires have killed overstory conifers and created light gaps with bare mineral soil. The complexities of Giant Sequoia establishment and survival in relation to fire can be seen in the empirical model presented in Figure 2. Fire occurrence in the Giant Sequoia groves is a function of many biotic and abiotic factors. The presence of lighting or other source of ignition, environmental conditions of temperature and humidity, fuel biomass, and interval since the last fire are all important factors in fire occurrence. Without fire, there is little or no release of Giant Sequoia seeds and seedling establishment is rare, even if bare mineral soil is available. Light fires reduce woody litter and expose mineral soil and produce a light rain of seeds from mature Giant Sequoias nearby. Seedling survival is poor under these conditions, however, since canopy openings are not established for light, and competition with surviving saplings of White Fir for water and nutrient resources increases mortality for Giant Sequoia seedlings. High rates of survivorship for giant sequoia seedlings normally requires intense fires which open the canopy, kill young fir saplings thereby increasing the availability of water and nutrients. Regional climatic factors here play an important role in determining if these Giant Sequoia seedlings will survive to become mature trees. Drought years following fire severely increase mortality of saplings. Wet conditions in subsequent years, however, removes this drought stress and leads to high survivorship. 160 The ecology of Giant Sequoia contrasts sharply with that of White Fir.in relation to the importance of fire for reproduction and seedling establishment. In White Fir, abundant seedlings are produced at relatively regular intervals of 5-10 years, with or without fire (Figure 3). There is no special mechanism tying seed release to fire. Giant sequoias, however, are sharply tied to fire cycles or time periods of decades or more. Light fires (LF) produce small peaks of seedling production, but high denssities of seedlings critical for he maintenance of grove populations occur only after relatively intense fire (IF) which occur far less frequently (Figure 3). Giant Sequoia in the Mixed Conifer Ecosystem Giant Sequoias live not as isolated species, but as integral parts of the mixed conifer forest ecosystem of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. Modern ecological understanding has advanced tremendously in the past few decades, as has knowledge of the ecological relations and biological history of Giant Sequoias. We understand much better now that Giant Sequoias, much as each of us in our own society, is but one piece of a complex system of interacting species and environmental factors. We cannot understand and preserve the value of Giant Sequoias for future generations without understanding and preserving the dynamic properties of the mixed conifer ecosystems of which the Giant Sequoias are a part. The establishment, growth, and survival of Giant Sequoia is greater than the simple sum of its genetic make up. Much more than this. Giant Sequoia must be understood within the framework of its diverse and complex biotic and abiotic environment. Appropriate ecological understanding and effective resource management of Giant Sequoia and its preservation in the Sierra Nevada is impossible without and understanding and protection of the mixed conifer ecosystem in which it exists. How can we measure the importance of individual species within a mixed conifer forest.? Are their other species of ecological significance in addition to Giant Sequoias? As impressive as are the sizes of huge individual Giant Sequoias in the Sierra Nevada, this species only makes up about one in twenty trees in the groves in which they occur. Moreover, three-fourths of the growth and productivity in these groves comes from other tree species. These include White Fir, Red Fir, Sugar Pine, Incense Cedar, and Ponderosa Pine. All of these tree species play an important role in dynamic cycles of fire, nutrient flow, water cycling, and uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Cycles of growth and mortality in all of these tree species strongly influence patterns of fire frequency and intensity, and thus very directly impact the dynamics of Giant Sequoia. The biological diversity of the Giant Sequoia / mixed conifer ecosystem goes well beyond the dominant tree species. Many mammals and bird species play significant ecological roles in seed dispersal. Herbivores strongly impact seed longevity and the survivorship of seedlings. Often unappreciated as well are 161 the critical ecosystem functions that take place below-ground. Decomposing fungi and bacteria recycle nutrients into the soil where other microorganisms transform this organic material to available nitrogen and mineral resources for higher plants. Mycorrhizal fungi associated with tree roots aid in the uptake of phosphorus and water, while symbiotic bacteria in the roots of understory shrubs and herbs form special nodules that can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, effectively providing their own source of fertilizer. All of these multiple levels of biological activity must operate in an intact ecosystem if they are to continue as they have before the advent of human activities in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystem Perspectives on Giant Sequoia Management # Modern Ecosystem Ecology has provided a strong empirical and theoretical framework to demonstrate the importance of a broad ecosystem perspective at the landscape level in managing natural resources. If our goal is to maintain the dynamic structure and ecological function of processes in Giant Sequoia / mixed conifer ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada, we must appreciate the complexities of ecosystem interactions that occur and understand the important interactions of both biotic and abiotic factors/ Many of these critically important ecosystem factors operate at very large landscape levels, well beyond the boundaries of small groves. Drought, beyond our control at this stage, can affect the entire Sierra Nevada. Fires may occur as local impacts, or interact with conditions of drought or heavy fuel accumulation to be broad landscape events. The extent, frequency, and intensity of fires may all have profound effects on the structure of these ecosystems. Even within smaller landscapfe units such as Giant Sequoia groves, ecosystem conditions are not homogeneous, but rather mosaics of small areas of varying stand structure and age. This structural inhomogeneity is a key element of biodiversity and stability of the Giant Sequoia / mixed conifer ecosystem. There is no serious scientific opinion suggesting Giant Sequoia / mixed conifer ecosystems can be effectively managed as "museum preserves" protected from human manipulations. No management is bad management. Enlightened and active resource management is of critical importance in restoring and maintaining the mix of natural processes of ecosystem dynamics that existed before the influence of Western Civilization, and this management must include effective programs of prescribed burns to restore and maintain natural mosaics of fire intensity and stand stmcture within the groves as well as surrounding areas. Small Giant Sequoia groves cannot be appropriately managed as separate entities, but must be considered within the framework of broader landscape units. Both within and beyond the time-frame of human history in California, we know that Giant Sequoia groves have not been static entities. Paleoecological records of climatic cycles over the past 2,000 years are evident in the growth records interpreted from tree rings of Giant Sequoias. Fire frequencies and intensities have changed sharply from century to century or even decade to 162 decade. Over a longer time period of 4,000-10,000 years, the extent and distribution of the Giant Sequoia groves themselves have also changed dramatically. Thus, it is important that we appreciate these dynamics in planning ecosystem management strategies for Giant Sequoia that will be as viable in the next and subsequent centuries as they are today. Scientists have learned a great deal about the biology and ecology of Giant Sequoia in recent decades, but we are far from knowing all of the answers. There is a clear consensus, however, that preservation of Giant Sequoia / mixed conifer ecosystems will require continuing feedback between basic and | applied researchers.and managers as our understanding of ecosystem structure and function continues to increase. Forest community structure and the maintenance of critical biodiversity must be based on an ecosystem approach to resource management . (Attachment follows:) Hot Fire 164 ■o c 8^ ^^ o = w -9 •2 1 « fc C (0 (A (/> m w o « c CO ^ "5 03 ^LL LL i UJ o Ul c ill < o o 111 (0 < o c 3 o O C CO 2 M C ffl eedra sequo 1 Heavy s of giant ol •D O _ TJ ra-o 0 0} CCS m «^ il (_ 0 0 E E 3 CT 0 2 (0 3 W M ^ 3 0 (A ^.E c c — 0 2 3 W Q5 c © 3 o> «s o 3 CT 0 W c (0 0 k. 3 2 i_l "gig' JO i 5 o ffl 5 165 E d c c Qi Q c re almost a century of successful fire exclusion, and one hot September day we may well lose everything growing in some of our fabulous giant sequoia groves. We have been working in forestry to develop our understanding of what ecosystem management means. I think it means that we must configure our management to that which forest biology and ecology teach us. There must be a symmetry to what we want to do and what nature will do. As resource managers, we must bring into balance ecological conditions, economic conditions, and social conditions. There is a solution space where these all meet, but to ignore any of these is to attempt to separate ourselves fixwn our 174 ecosystems, and ultimately, as biological organisms, we will pay a very high price for our ignorance and our arrogance. Neither natural forest succession nor human manipulation are environmentally benign nor are they necessarily scenic. Yet both action and inaction clearly affect our forests and their habitats through time, with both short and long term effects. As a logger for seven years, and a forester for twenty-six, I have seen that my activities in forest management often tum green into brown or black for months or even years, depending on the ecosystem. Yet I have returned to areas that Fve cut, to forests that Tve burned, and to trees that I've planted, and have seen that development through growth and succession that have turned these areas into beautiful growing forests, because black and brown naturally tum into green, rejuvenating the land and reusing the soil. Dcme with knowledge, forethought, and care, with ecosystem management we can create and restore anew our amazing resources. No sane person would disagree with the goals of this bill. Certainly we all want to preserve giant sequoia. But it is naive to ask nature to take care of our forests in a socially acceptable manner after we have attempted to ignore vegetation development for so long. As written, this bill ignores forest succession, a climate that provides conditions for catastrophic fires, centuries of manipulation by Native Americans, and millennia of forest interactions. We must indeed preserve giant sequoia ecosystem dynamics, and these we must learn firom the forest itself. This bill's provisions, abdicating management and ignoring what we are learning from ecosystems, while we increase dependence on fwests elsewhere, is foolishness in the extreme. No matter what we decide here or elsewhere, nature's inexorable forces will continue, and humans will continue to be dependent on forests. The larger ecosystem questions, in which humanity must be included as part of the ecosystem, dictate that we cannot continue to ignore our conflicting desires fOT both beauty and products. Since residents of this country continue to consume the world's forests in increasing quantities per capita per year, we have a responsibility to preserve fOTCSts around the world. My colleague Bill Libby points out that if we "preserve", and forego harvest of trees on 1000 acres of land in California, we are probably increasing harvest elsewhere, adversely affecting at least 5,000 acres in some place like Ecuador, causing enviioiunental degradation, an inordinately higher level of species extinctions, and displacement of indigenous peoples. The giant sequoia forest resource is almost magical in its ability to fulfill human desires and needs. Studies referenced below detail both the growth rate and the value of young growth giant sequoia as a resource. These young trees grow two to four times faster than their coniferous neighbors, with wood qualities that meet or exceed those of coastal redwood. Combine these facts with natural fire, insect and disease resistance, an ability to grow in pure or mixed stands, its fabled beauty, and here is a tree which we should revere and indeed preserve through much greater use. We must manipulate and manage, carefully and with forethought, with fire and with axe, if we are to be sure of the continuance of this fabulous resource. Gasser, D. P. (IN PRESS) Young growth management of giant sequoia. In: Proceedings of a Symposium, Giant Sequoias: llieir Place in the Ecosystem and Society, VisaUa, California, June 23-25, 1992. Libby, W. J. (IN PRESS) Mitigating some consequences of giant sequoia management (same proceedings as above). (Attachment follows:) uv 175 Is Is — rf ■" CJ M >» s: >•«« M •« C • T- *« (9 I 3 & C ■ E c a \ /■ I c £ O CM O o 00 o o (O o o CO CD o CM 0) o o o ♦ I o o o Q o o o o o o o lO o lO o in o in o in in ^ ^ CO CO CM CM 'T' 1— o« ajov Jdd saeji 176 TESTIMONY REGARDING HR2153 THE GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT Presented by HUME LAKE CHRISTIAN CAMPS Bob Phillips Jeff Lilley 177 TESTIMONY RE: HR2153 Hume Lake Christian Camps Representing Recreation and Inholders Opposed OVERVIEW Though we are speaking as employees of Hume Lake Christian Camps, we will be doing our best to represent the positions of tens-of-thousands of recreationists, private property inholders, and special use permit holders who use, enjoy and/or live in the Sequoia National Forest. All of us, from the family that rents a cabin for a week, to the teen-age kids who are fortunate enough to take advantage of the many organized camps and programs in the National Forest, are concerned with the preservation of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. However, we would like to go on record as opposing the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act and, at the same time, would like to avoid the stigma of being called anti-environmentalists for disagreeing on the perceived impact of this bill. The issue is far bigger than the giant sequoia, which has been established as the mascot for HR2153. There is no question that this is a remarier removal during that 70-year period). 13 189 These trees are not threatened. They are already protected. There is no reason or need to make the Sequoia National Forest a preserve, it would cost in terms of lost jobs, weakened forest health, and lost revenue to county, state and federal governments. Sec 2(13) "b" "Workers paid by private interests for felling, hauling, and milling trees within the boundaries of the Preserve established by this Act are subsidized by United States taxpayers." First of all, the United States Government has long practiced subsidies in a vanety of industries because of the larger, beneficial effect on the economy and on industry. This has been a standard accepted practice in areas such as dairy, tobacco, and peanuts. So, even if this were tme, it is not necessarily a negative. However, by examining TSPIRS it is obvious that the timber industry is actually paying for itself in ways that dairy, tobacco, and peanuts never nave. The Forest Service's timber program brings in revenues jthat pay government salaries, enhance forest health, and increase recreational uses. Compare that to the Park Service where all similar expenses are paid for by the United States Treasury. The concept that the timber industry is subsidized comes from the fact that government lands are contracted out at a greatly reduced price, as compared to private lands. This actually has a long-range effect on the entire economy. One of the major indicators on the health of the economy is based on housing starts. Housing starts are related directly to building material affordability. That affordability is based on the price for lumber, which can be impacted by the price the Forest Service charges for its timber.. As a reminder the trees cost the Forest Service nothing, and they are indeed a renewable resource. The price for selling those trees (administrative and road building, etc.) is paid for by the revenues of the timber sales. A loss of the timber sales program means a loss of revenue, jobs, and the many other benefits of such a program. See TSPIRS Sec 2 (15) "United States Forest Service figures show the recreational value of the Sequoia National Forest to be more than 6 times that of timber extraction, yet recreational values, and the opportunities for gainful employment associated therewith, are seriously and permanently eroded under past and present management of the Forest." 14 80-635 0 -94 -7 190 Having lived in the forest for decades we have not seen any loss in recreational values, only an increase. Employment will definitely decline because of this bill, due to lost timber employment and the restrictions applied to recreational activities in the area. If the recreational value of the Forest is 6 times greater than timber extraction, why is the nine- member panel noticably missing anyone representing public and recreational interests? We hold that past and present management has enhanced recreational opportunities, not diminished them. Sec 2 (16) "Private property values within and around the area affected by provisions of this act, which are now adversely impacted by logging and associated activities, will be enhanced by the cessation of such activities, and opportunities for new businesses compatible with forest and ecosystem preservation will appear." First of all, nearly every property owner within the Preserve is opposing this bill for the soul reason that the imposition of the restrictions within this bill would, in fact, diminish property values. Fire danger and the threat of loss of property and loss of life is greatly increased do to this bill. Finally, new business ventures are cleariy forbidden in this bill, making it very difficult for new businesses to appear. CONCLUSIONS The bill states clearly at least six different times that the purpose is to restore the forest to a natural state, it is to that means that the Secretary is directed when he and the nine-member board is to determine the final direction of the preserve. With such a goal, We do not see this bill to be consistent with the stated purposes of Congress when it established National Forests. We do not see this bill to be consistent with the use of the forest by the average citizen of the United States. We do not see this bill to be consistent with the preservation of the giant sequoia or the ancient forest. We do not see this bill to be consistent with the education and appreciation of the forests and its treasures. We do not see this bill to be consistent with protection or respect of citizen's rights and property. We do not see this bill to be consistent with the expressed concerns of the President of the United States when he asked that the direction of local areas be placed back into the hands of the local people. We do not see this bill to be consistent with proper management of the biodiversity of an entire ecosystem, rather a further division of a complex ecological system. 15 191 We do not see this bill to be consistent to the very purpose it statt j ir. '" title, to preserve the giant sequoias. We do not see this bill to be consistent to goals of enhancing the liv others through the many organizations and businesses that already function in the Sequoia National Forest. We also take exception to the findings in HR2153 that suggest there would be an opportunity for more recreation. That is untrue and has never happened historically. Take a lesson from the Redwood National Park on the coast of California. (What if you built a park and nobody came?) It is also stated that revenue from new business ventures would replace the revenue from the timber industry. That, too, is untrue. Indeed, the bill itself says there is to be no new development and only road closures and the restoration to natural states. When it says that property values would increase because of discontinued logging, this is also untrue. The Hume Lake basin was contracted out for a salvage timber sale about two years ago. The sale successfully removed excessive fuel loads, thinned out dense sections of fir. cedar and pine, and removed diseased trees and trees infested by beetles. Our property value would in fact decrease if it were burned to the ground because fuel loads were not managed. HR2153 is in our opinion, a poorly written, pooriy thought out attempt to save something that is already saved. Please, yes, let's save the giant sequoias forever. But do it through sound, accepted science, not by rhetoric that is designed to tug on emotional heart strings. There is enough emotion involved already in the conservation movement. What we need now is simply more wisdom on how to manage our resources. In Portland this last summer Jack Ward Thomas, who is now the Chief of the Forest Service made a statement to President Clinton. He said: "I also find that there is a large confusion in the body politic about what science is. Science is a process. It's not a product. Scientists propose; elected officials and others dispose . . . You [Mr. President] command natural resource agencies that have incredibly talented people in your employ. They are highly skilled, They are incredibly motivated. They can do marvelous things' when they understand their mission and it's clear and it's concise and all of them move forward together." We agree. Please allow those talented people in the Forest Service to do what they do best. If some direction is needed, please provide that direction. If stronger legislation is needed, simply endorse the current management plans already in effect. But, please do not isolate and damage the very trees and ecoregion we need to protect and enjoy. We strongly oppose HR2153. Bob Phillips and Jeff Lilley On behalf of Hume Lake Christian Camps 64144 Hume Rd. Hume. CA 93628 (209)335-2881 16 I 192 H. R. 2153 GJMJVT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT Presented by Opponents to H.R. 2153 INAmrTSHB.L The giant sequoias (Sequciadendrongiganteum) are the largest kses in the worid. They are native in only a small region of ttie Siena Nevada mountain range in CaHomia. HR2153 would estabiisti a preserve wittiin trie Sequoia National Forest tor the protection of Itiese tnagnifloeflt tees and to return the area wiinin the preserve to a natural state. ^ The giant sequoias deserve protection, indeed, they alrsady haw i. H.R2153 is a needles t)ill. but it goes one step further. It actually threatens the great trees by poor forest management We would like to insure the protection of the giant sequoias by maintaining proper management of ttw entire ecosystem based on sound scientific principles. We oppose H.R.2153 because it is flawed. It is vague and leaves too many important details to chance. The bill is not based on sdentificaUy sound principtes and threatens the very trees it is designed to protect The bill duplicates government proigrams already in effect and adds unnecessary expenses to an already over-taxed budget SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT OM H. R. 21S3 A. The Giant Sequoias are NOT being logged as the bill stales. B. The Giant Sequoias are already protected by a Presidentiai Prodamsttion signed by George Bush in 1992. by the Land Management Plan, and by the Medtated Land Settlement ^reement signed in 1 990 by the Sierra Club.The Wiidemess Society, The CaMtemia Native Plant Society, The Sequoia Nationai Forest and over 1 5 other groups. C. Private property inhokjers and recreationisis strongly oppose H.R. 21 53. Although recreationists are the largest user group of the Nationai Forests, there is not a voice representing recreation on the nine-member panel ttiat wfl direct the Giant Sequoia Preserve. H. R. 2153 WILL HARM THE TREES RATHER THAN PROTECT A. The bill ignores decades of learning and study atxHJt forest health and management B. The bill will cause an increase in fuel loadbig. It sets ttw stage tor catastrophic fire potentid, like what happened in Yeltowstone. C. The bill will increase the potential for insect damage and dbease to the forest. D. The bill diminishes the ability of the Giant Sequoias to regenerate thentselves. ADOmOWAL NEGATIVE EFPECTS OF H.R. 21S3 A. The bill woukj negatively impact private property rights and speciai use permit hoMers. It carries the potential of seizure of private water rights. B. The bill would restrict the ability of the puoiic to use the forest Loss of recreation will affect non-profit camps for at-risk kids, diatiettc youth, organizational camps, hunting, fishing, four-wtieel drive vehides, motorcydes, mountain bflung. hiking and general accessibility. People with handicaps and dteaixlities woiid be granted only limited access. C. The bill ignores and tosses aside cooperation and intaractton between the public and the Forest Sernce on matters regarding pubNc lands. 0. The bill ignores ttie need tor timber production in the Uniad Stales. This results in a loss of employment, k}ss of revenue, and ttie fercad purchase of timber from foreign countries (where they do not practice proper torest management) E. The W\ has an extremely narrow focus. We need to protect the entire forest not just the Giant Sequoias. We need to develop a twtter and more saentUcally accurate bill. We need to vote no on H. R. 21 53. We need a plan that will encompass, protect and manage the Sierra Nevadas as an entire ecosystem and stop the piece-t)y-piece parceWng of America's natural resources. For Additional InformaUon Contact: Bob Phillips or Jeff Ullcy (209) 251-6043 or (209) 335-2881 193 STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMirTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES BY FRANK J. SCHLTTZ Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee Members for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Frank Schlitz, a contractor serving the Southeastern part of Tulare County, California. I have lived and worked in the Sequoia National Forest area for 45 years. I am still in awe of it's magnificent beauty. My mother made her first trip to Camp Nelson in about 1930 and my great grandparents built a cabin there in about 1935. My children are the fifth generation to enjoy this wonderful. area. It is my intention to retire in the Camp Nelson area which by the way is entirely within the proposed preserve. I am a member and past President of the Upper Tule Association. The Upper Tule Association represents nearly 500 property owners in the Tule River Drainage of the Sequoia National Forest There are approximately 1150 pieces of privately owned property in this area, surrounded by the Sequoia National Forest and within the proposed preserve. I would Uke to enter into the record a letter in opposition to HR2153 signed by Marvin Stonecipher, President of the Upper Tule Association. I am also a member of the People For The West, a grassroots campaign in support 194 of western communities. This rapidly expanding national organization is committed to the support of multiple use of our public lands. I have a proclamation in opposition to HR2153 to enter into record, signed by Dianna Taylor, President of the Tulare/Kings chapter of the People For The West, the largest chapter in California. I have discussed HR2153 with many of the local residents of the Camp Nelson area. These are people who have enjoyed the beauty of the Sequoia National Forest for many years and still enjoy it today as a beautiful forest, not as a "desolate desert" as some would lead you to believe. We discussed the purpose of HR2153, which supposedly is to save the Giant Sequoia Redwoods. This is a fine cause. But why do we need such a bill when the Redwoods are ah-eady protected by Presidential Proclamation signed by President Bush on July 14, 1992 and also the signed Mediated Agreement of 1990. This Mediated Agreement came from appeals to the Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan when it was adopted on February 25, 1988. We local residents have also talked about the vagueness of the bill, such as "restoring the entire forest ecosystem within the boundaries of the preserve to a natural state". My question is , what will happen to the roads, trails, camp grounds and cabins on Forest Service lease land"? What will happen to the summer home lease cabins within the Belknap Sequoia Redwood grove? What will h^pen to the very popular Belknap Campground that 195 lies within a Giant Sequoia Redwood grove? The summer home tract and campground have been enjoyed for generations by forest recreation families. Will these facilities be allowed to exist or will they be removed and the land returned to a "natural state"? How will the nine member Giant Sequoia Scientific Advisory Board manage these 442,000 acres? WUl eight Scientists and one layperson from an unknown background, look after the inholders' interest within the proposed preserve? Will the communities that use surface water be able to continue doing so or will these water sources be taken to fulfill the purposes of this Act? Camp Nelson Water Company users could be without a water supply if they lost their source. Will the mountain homeowners be left without water? How will the Board treat the many existing special use permits for roads, driveways, water lines, power lines and cabins? With the memories of the Southern California fires this past year still fresh in our minds, the fire danger is another great concern. As a land owner in the Sequoia National Forest I have grave concerns about the elimination of fire control activities in the proposed preserve. I am also concerned about protecting my property if increased fuel loads are aUowed on 400,000 acres of National forest Catastrophic wildfires will surely be a major problem. The Forest Service has contracted three helicopter timber sales in the past four years to remove insect killed trees in the Camp Nelson area. This area still looks as bad today 196 as it did prior to the times it was logged because die insect infestation continue and the trees are still dying. What would this area be like if it were a preserve and never logged? It would look like "Hell". Why should these natural resources be wasted along with an increased potential for a devastating wild fire. Keeping the Sequoia National Forest as a multiple use forest would continue its use as a great place that could be enjoyed by mai^ families to have a family picnic, camp, ride horses, hunt, and fish. The proposed legislation would change all that No motorized use of trails would be allowed within the Preserve. On the Sequoia National Forest this would eliminate 108 miles of motorcycle trails, 8 miles of 4-wheel drive trails and approximately one-half of the snowmobiling opportunities which now exist These restriction could be a tremendous blow to the local resorts who rely greatly on the tourist and recreational dollar for their survival. HR21S3 could be devastating to me personally. This bill coiild cost me as much as 50% of my business. A large portion of my work generated by the homeowners, church camps and packstations, would be lost I would lose the reforestation and other project work I do for the Forest Service. I would be forced to minimize my operation thus reducing my work force. This bill could also cost me more money as a taxpayer as it would undoubtedly cost the Federal Government many millions of dollars to manage this 442,000 acres as a preserve, rather than a productive multiple use forest 197 After watching this forest for the past 45 years and reading HR2153, I wonder what this bill would do to enhance the beauty and health of the forest? Will the vagueness and the unknowns of the scientific ideas of the Advisory Board produce an ecosystem like the magnificent forest we know today? In my mind, I don't believe this bill would improve on the ground management over what is being done today. Why are they trying to re-invent the wheel? (Attachments follow;) 198 A GI^SSROgrSCAi^AIGN IN SUPPORT OF WESTERN CQMMUWnTES VMnswsrAinMweLMttseaALmoKPAaax4MMabAOOt9NMS«eaim4r«tMf«tt Il» Caiitaaia QapiBi of Wesnm Sam PnfaOe Ladi CoiiUQB, "Pm^ Ibr tiw Wad* o«9Mgn JB nppoR of moUpto OH OB B&2I53, tlw Qint Sof'c'* ^^'v^^'iBB A^ {brtfacfbOovnof I) 2) 3) 5) TblM BJtMBQB llltlliy ^nflTHl HW 1 1990 bjr A^KiBQf of piCTCtVBJOP H^VUpi, WBaOfktX * Gmi% Md oihHi, to fDida tb* kad aauanaat pln»( ffar aB 1 tl»S«|MiKNMiaaaIFana. -nBi fcgjriiakitt «ho igioiM ih» j«MMy itowioyail aatbdhwiOMii ■ott to piow dnt Tsit li|juooo II M (iiiCi inlil Httiiyi to j^^iig im'iiMi^ motoniBdnd froBi > Nithmi FowB I 4W nKWmB tolf> % Bfl TMiTi^iHnn tidfeal tbs ndfiniifalo fhct Ihst ^tet nooote wi • •81 lO^BmttOB vvUL UQOBCOBUB^DT iB^&BC H^^^KV 9GQO0IID6 Bfl^BL flft iBO doOao, to ita ftniEM, eflBBMBidM, aoBoiiM, Md ragiaa at * oeem ftoa a iBnoRo bMedccanoay toa Tlia WW PBducc fcditil ftm Mipof aawiai that hew hatodealjr ifaoivB BMt ori JaBiS,1993t Piidtiipnrt; CaBftniii T 199 A UPPER TULE ASSOCIATION, INC Ma p. O. BOX 68 CAMP NELSON. CALIFORNIA 93208 March 3, 199^ The Honorable Charlie Rose HI Chairman, Specialty Crops and Natural Resources 105 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Rose: The overwhelming majority of mountain area residents comprising the Upper Tule Association are adamantly opposed to H.R. 2153* the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act. Please note our opixjsition for the record. The premise of the bill is misleading. It implies that the forest would function better as some sort of a park. In reality, the 442,000 acres involved would be much healthier in its present - multiple-use status. Changes in forest management and policy can always be made on an individual basis as necessary. In addition, the Giant Sequoias are already protected by Presidential Proclam- ation and the 1990 Mediated Settlement. Use of the deceptive, but persuasive title, "Giant Sequoia Preservation Act" is dishonest and unfair. The bill is also very poorly written, whether by accident or by design. The authority given to the "committee" is ambiguous. A reasonable person might conclude that the committee will have whatever power it wishes to exercise. Finally, there is the much-argued matter of cost. California is already struggling through a long term recession. Few of us would object to the necessary elimination of jobs and revenues if the end result truly was an improved forest. The health of the forest however can be better enhanced through responsible multiple- use and by modification where necessary without wholesale elimination of jobs and taxes. Please consider the opinions, of mountain and forest area res- idents when debating H.R. 2153. Thank you. Sincerely, aincerexy, >o Marvin Stonecipher, President Upper Tule Association, Inc. "Serving the Ten Communities of the Upper Tule Recreation Area' 200 Statement of Lany Duysen Before The Subcommittee On Specialty Crops and Natural Resources HJL2153 Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Lany Duysen, a licensed professional forester in the State of California and the logging superintendent for Sierra Forest Products of Terra Bella, California. I am a member of The Society of American Foresters and The California Licensed Foresters Association. In addition, I am the outgoing President of The Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference, representing members of the logging industry in California, Southern Oregon and Nevada. My testimony today represents Sierra Forest Products and my nineteen years ejqierience as a professional forester in the Southern Sierras. The Giant Sequoia Preservation Bill is lacking in many areas. It proposes to remove 442,000 acres of land within the Sequoia National Forest to create our nations first "Forest Preserve". The rational behind this concept is to protect approximately 15,000 acres of Giant Sequoia Groves. These groves are already protected by Forest Service Regulations, Presidential Proclamation and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement of the Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan. When The Land Management Plan was adopted on February 25, 1988, nimierous parties appealed the decision, challenging the Plan and/or the EIS on many grounds. These groups consisted of national and local environmental organizations, the timber industry, the State of California, the cattle industry and various recreational and user groups. The Forest Supervisor made the decision to use mediation as a tool to resolve the many conflicting view points presented in the appeals. Between March of 1989 and June of 1990, the parties spent many days in face-to-face discussion and negotiation. Having personally peirticipated in the mediation, I can attest to the long hours, dedication and perseverance of all those involved. The result of this was an agreement signed in July of 1990 by representatives for eighteen organizations. I have with me today a copy of this agreement and would like it entered in the record. Many agreements were made in regards to resource allocation and land management policy. Some of these include protection for the Giant Sequoia Groves, protection for riparian areas, a reduction in the land base for timber production, a reduced harvest level 201 and a 75% reduction in the silvicultural practice of clear-cutting. Realizing that there will always be conflicting view points in regards to managing the natural resources of federal lands, I feel that through the efforts of the mediation group a true balance has been found. This agreement should be allowed to proceed and not be destroyed by this Bill. The outcome of the mediation has inspired other groups in California and Oregon to try to reach a consensus in their local areas. This is also the concept of consensus building that President Qinton urged at the Timber Summit last year in Portland. Our country is at a crossroad in many areas of key policy making decisions. This bill directly effects three of these key areas; natxu-al resource management, our nations economy and the national budget Ths current direction in resource management, based on much scientific study, is ecosystem management This involves managing large landscapes for biodiversity of all the plant and animal species. This bill proposes to do the exact opposite and if passed will prove to be disastrous for both forest health, wildlife habitat, and the economy. The Sequoia National Forest is facing a potential forest fire crises as are many areas in The Sierra Nevada. As recently as 199G the Stormy Fire Complex burned approximately 24,000 acres on the Sequoia. The catastrophic fires in Southern California and the Oakland Hills are other recent dynamic examples. Before the influence of the white settlers, forest vegetation was managed by nature and the Native Americans with fire. Fire was a frequent visitor to the forest. These fires, ustially of low intensity, thinned the forests and reduced the density of shrub and brush. The forests of a century ago were much more open and park like. It's a fact that we have more trees now than 100 years ago. Early photographs and accounts of pioneers document this point Today our forests are much more dense. Insect outbreaks are prevalent and even on a casual tour of the forest one can see evidence of declining forest health. Our dedicated efforts to eliminate catastrophic fire have helped society, but to the detriment of forest health. The fuel loading, or amount of dead forest material, has now reached a very threatening level. One buzz word today is "Vegetative management". If catastrophic fires are not an acceptable management tool, and I believe they are not, mechanical measures need to be implemented. To simply "lock up" our forests is not scientifically sound nor is it in the best 202 interest of the forest, the people or the wfldlife. The economic implications of this bill should not be taken lightly. While the federal government is witnessing a significant reduction in budgets, HiL 2153 would increase federal expenditures. Fresno, Tulare, and Kern Counties would annually lose up to Si million in "25% fund" payments. The last annual payment to the three counties was $1.7 million. These payments, from the revenue of timber harvesting, would now be replaced by federal appropriations. Fuel management costs are expected to climb by $2 million annually. It is estimated that creation of the preserve's management plan could cost $1 million dollars. The cost of the Scientific Advisory Board Administration, maintaining road closures and operation of the community Assistance Task Force will be on going and expensive. Sierra Forest Products, since its beginning in 1986 has been an important component of the economy in S.E. Tulare County. We employ 160 people on a year round basis and provide employment for an additional 125 during the logging season. In 1992 our payroll, employee medical insurance, federal taxes withheld from employees and payments to logging contrsictors totalled over $13 million. Forest Service data shows employment related income for the forest products industry from the Sequoia National Forest to be $33 milUon annually. The economy of Tulare County is largely based on agriculture and presently is experiencing an unemployment rate of around 17%. Our Company not only provides critical employment, but is one of the few industries that provides the potential for entry level personnel to advance to higher positions. Most of our skilled personnel and many of our management level employees have progressed from entry level to their present positions. In addition the majority of our employees are minorities. We provide a unique opportunity for employment for many of these people that is not often found in the San Joaquin Valley. Our mill is privately owned and one of the most efGcient in the State of California. The management has taken much effort over the years to strive to improve this efficiency. We utilize 100% of every log and manufacture a variety of products. The plant in Terra Bella is our only operation. The site consists of the sawmill, planing mill, cut-stock mill, co-generation plant and bark plant The co-generation plant xises sawdust, woodchips and recycled wood fiber from outside sources to produce steam which in turn dries our lumber and produces electricity. This electricity, 9 Megawatts, is sold to Southern California Edison and is the equivalent to the power requirements of about 10,000 homes. 203 The cut-stock mill chops clear blocks of wood from lumber that is of lesser grade. This operation provides a value-added product that will be used for fingerjointing and products like window and door frames. Sierra Forest Products, like all mills on the west coast, has experienced the consequences of the artificial shortage of timber being removed from the National Forest. Historically we have been dependent on the National Forests for 95% of our log supply. When our mill was built in 1968, there were 3 other mills in the area. We are now the sole survivor. The Sequoia National Forest annually grows about 135 million board feet of timber. We have seen the harvest levels reduced over the years from about 100 million board feet to a predicted harvest of 26 million this year. Last year we were forced to reduce our production from a two shift operation to one shift. This resulted in the lay-off of 60 people. This may sound insignificant in Washington D.C., but believe me, it was traumatic to the families involved. I believe the saddest and the most difficult time in my career has been experiencing the loss to these people. The demand for wood products is increasing throughout he United States. This demand is not going to change. The tremendous increase in lumber prices and the additional cost in home construction the nation has experienced in the last two years will continue at an escalating rate imless adequate timber supplies are available. If the National Forests, who contain some of the most productive and well managed timber lands in the world are not available, other areas in the world will be. We are presently importing Radiata Pine Logs by ship from New Zealand in an effort to keep our company alive. The fact that we are forced to go overseas, while not effectively managing our own forests, saddens me. If this bill passes, we will be legislated out of business. But, more importantly. The Sequoia National Forest will be out of business as effective natural resource managers. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Study is currently imderway involving extensive scientific research throughout the entire range. This study was authorized in the 1993 Appropriations Act with a cost of $7 million over the next two-and-one-half years. H.R. 2153 proposes to remove 442,000 acres without the benefit of this scientific study. There should be no land withdrawals on any of the national forests until this study is completed and the results subjected to scientific peer review. The basis of this bill lacks quantitative scientific review, economic review and a lack of perspective into it's social impacts. I truly believe that a balance can be found in all natural resource management decisions. The Mediated Agreement is a balance, a good balance for the Sequoia National 204 Forest This Agreement insures that through multiple-use, all users and the resources are protected We need to give it a chance. Thank you for the opportunity to testify tod^. I would like to extend a personal invitation to all of you to come to the Sequoia National Forest I would be very happy to show you our operation and the forest I think that is the best w^ for all of us to grasp a better understanding of these complex issues. 205 t: SHANNON RANCH n MT. 410X107 forrcnviLLi. ca. nan March 2, 199* Th« Venoribit Charlie loia III, Chalraan Spacialty Cropt and Vacural leaourcaa 3ubcommltC«c 105 Cannon tfouaa Offiea Bldf. I VaaniDccen. DC 20515 Oaar Chairaan toaa: Plaasa locluda sf eoaaanta In cha racord for H.R. 2153, cba Sianc Saquela Praarvaclon ice. On bahalf of cha 33 gracing pacaicceaa vbo run eactla on tha Ciant Sequoia Sfacional Foraac t oppoae H.t. 2153. Tha Qiant Saquola Praaarvacion Act vould eloaa cha Foreac to grating aa wall aa CO ail ecbar •ulClpla uaaa. Tha concapt of multipla uaa aciliilog profaaaiooal landaanagara. both In cha privaca aaetor and tb« Dublle aactor, baoafiea cba anvlronaanc as trail aa our local eomaunseiaa and cha naclonal aceaeaf. Ulchouc cha aTailabillC7 of public landi for livaitocic grailn*, •any of our rtacbai would not ba acoaoaically faaalbla. tha privaca ranchlanda co which public lands graaing paralct ir« tl*C, gravida a buffar for our public landa. a "»'"«•.«',? Jf*" '•"' J"' Cha icaca, and ara pare of our vlawihad. If H.I. *J" *• P*;":;.-.-, aany ranchara viU ba forcad co aall chair priv.t. !•««»■" doalopar. Subdlvl.lona and othar davalopaaac. will raault in Jj« Jj'^^^^^.l aec aurvlva cha Can to aaventy ptrcant decrtaaa in tnair gro.. incoaaa which would raaulc iha loa. of cacci.gr.xing "*-«;;;;!;% Swi-I^^nSS*! furthar iapacct oa CaUfornia.Wlchout cacti, con.u. .^^ ^^^^^ I. tuUr. C..»., ... ... ""' '"""i: SJjJS'flU "' ..ciciltur.. .Mi" «f t" tt1i;.',«"' .M '"«.. «lf«. aliBinatad br •*•»• *t.ii coancv on chair c'**^*** P*****!*- ravanua. 206 Tha arai eovtrad by W.ft. 2193 concalns 23,100 tcrii of prlvata laodi. Vieh tha lot« of aeeaaa roada and cha many othtr raacricciona placed on tha aurroundlnit public landa by thla IcKlJlatlon, vhat aconoaic uata act Itfc for chaaa landa? Prlvata preparer rlfhta are aaong choaa guarancaad by tha United Scicaa Conatitution that oada our country gttM. R.R. 2133 vould coniticuca a cilcing of cheaa privaca property rlghti. Plnallr> I terved es a aenbar of the California State Board of Poreatry for eight yeara. I «aa reaponsibla, along with my eolleaguaa on tha Board, for aetting policy for CillfornlA'i State Foreata. ^fountain Home State ?oreft. vhieb haf asny acres of aequoxaa redwooda. ia managed for multiple uaea including the lodging of redwood. In the 8 yeara t vas involTad, 1983 to 1991, the ataca waa eontinuoualy praiaed for ita management of thia foraat. It ia cooaidared by many to be the Jevel of California State Foreati, proving oact again that mulcipla uae and environmental quality go hand in hand. To protect and encourage the growth of our aequola redvooda in particular and our foreac lands in general, va need sound auleipla aaa planning by professional land maoagaca with Che input of the public, not a Conxrassionally mandated loclcup of our :iacional roreats. as would by aatablisbed by JI.B. 21)3. I urge tr.a aubcoaaiccee to rajacc this aeaeure. Thank you for your tiae and conaidernClon in thla matter. incerely. I Jack Shannon 207 THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY TESTIMONY OF LOUIS BLUMBERG, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, CAU- FORNIA - NEVADA OFFICE OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ON H.R. 2153, THE GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1993, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, MARCH 9, 1994. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of the 300,000 memtsers of The Wilderness Society, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for your hearing on H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Act of 1993. The Wilderness Society (TWS) has long advocated for the creation of a permanent ancient forest resen/e system, not only for the Sequoia National Forest, but also for the ancient forests of the entire Sierra Nevada range and the Pacific West. Legislation was introduced in the 102nd Congress that would have established such a system, however it was not enacted. Currently, H.R. 2153 is the only bill that would create a permanent ancient forest presen/e. Passage of H.R. 2153 would be an important first step on the road toward permanently protecting our rapidly disappear- ing ancient forest resources. Mr. Chairman, the ancient forests of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, and in fact, the entire Sierra Nevada range, encompiass a variety of tree species. In addition to Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), some of the ancient forest groves in the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests contain Douglas fir and mixed conifer species, including pine, cypress, and red and white fir. Just as the ancient Giant Sequoia groves do, groves comprised primarily of other species also provide a multitude of benefits to the public. These ancient forests are intact, functioning ecosystems ttiat should be preserved for their ecological and scientific values as well as for their spiritual and aesthetic values. The remaining ancient forest ecosystems are the last vestiges of a more primitive, p)re-settlement time and their preservation is essential for the maintenance of our native biological diversity. Mr. Chairman, The Wildemess Society supports wholeheartedly tiie goals of H.R. 2153. The Giant Sequoias are an unique resource, an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage, and are worthy of permanent protection. Only Congressional action such as H.R. 2153 can accomplish this important goal. Likewise, passage of H.R. 2153 can end tne subsidized destaiction of this price- less resource. Based on Forest Service data alone. The Wildemess Society conclud- ed that the Sequoia Nationai Forest lost $1.7 million dollars in its FY 1992 timber 900 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.Nf., WASHINGTON, DC. 20006-2596 (202) 833-2300 208 sale program while degrading the forest's watersheds and diminishing its attractive- ness to recreationists. In this era of fiscal constraints, operating such a money loosing timber sales program makes no sense, financially or socially. Mr. Chairman, The Wilderness Society recommends improving H.R. 2153 with amendments in several areas. Adoption of these amendments are important if the legislation is to achieve its laudable goal of permanently protecting the ancient forests of the southern Sierra Nevada. 1 . Ancient Forest Additions: TWS recommends that three areas be added to the Preserve. Though these areas do not include Giant Sequoia trees, all three contain ecologically significant ancient forest ecosystems worthy of protection. They encom- pass primarily pine and mixed conifer species and are known as the Woodpecker, Rincon, and Piute areas. We have included maps of these areas with this testimony. Amongst their many attributes, the Woodpecker and Rincon contain important sensitive Sierran wildlife species including fisher, wolverine. Sierra Nevada red fox, and the Little Kern Golden Trout, the latter which is considered a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. In addition to their important ecological roles, these ancient forest areas provide important recreational resources which are experi- encing increasing demand from the populous southern California region. The proposed Piute addition contains the only remaining ancient forest in the Piute Mountains, the most southern portion of the Sequoia National Forest and the entire Sierra Nevada range. Because of its geographical location, the ancient forest of the Piutes is critical in maintaining a biological connection with the Tehachapis and the adjacent Coast range for species such as the California spotted owl, which is also found in the Piutes. The area is home to the largest population of the narrowly endemic Piute Cypress, which grow only in the southern Sequoia National Forest region. 2. Wilderness Addition: The Wilderness Society recommends that H.R. 2153 be amended to incorporate the North Moses area into the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System as an addition to the Golden Trout Wilderness. The designation of this Wilderness area was agreed to in the Sequoia Mediated Settlement Agreement and only awaits Congressional action to create the most complete protection possible - designation as Wilderness. Mr. Chairman, TWS would be happy to work with you to draft language for this amendment. 3. Further Study: Like the Sequoia, the Sierra National Forest includes many ecologi- cally significant ancient forest stands interspersed within and between Giant Sequoia groves. TTie Stanislaus, Eldorado and Tahoe National Forests also are home to ancient forest, some of it giant Sequoia trees, though the farther north one travels in the Sierra Nevada, the fewer Giant Sequoia one finds. TWS recommends that subsection 7(b) of H.R. 2153 be amended to instruct the Forest Service to provide an inventory of all ancient forest, including species other than Giant Sequoia, on the other national forests of the central and southern Sierra Nevada within one year of the date J 209 of enactment of this Act. The amendment should also specify that all ancient forest identified by this process be incorporated into the Giant Sequoia Preserve system at the first annual review following this study as provided for in subsection 7(b) "Annual Recommendations.' 4. Roads: The language in subsection 7(e)(1) is unnecessarily vague. In order to more dearty accomplish the intent of the legislation, the language of this subsection should be amended to explicrtty prohibit new road construction in the Preserve. Mr. Chairman, Giant Sequoia groves of the Sien-a Nevada range are truly indescrib- able. Many of these trees are more than 2,000 years old. In fact, one tree in the Converse Basin, was estimated to tje dose to 3,000 years old when it was cut earfy in this Century. The Wildemess Sodety urges you to improve and pass H.R. 2153 so that fijture generations of Americans can experience these remarkable ecosystems. Congressional protection of the Giant Sequoias is just the type of foresighted action that will be remembered long after short term finandal gains have vanished. 210 iTHos CROWE „^,«, Crowe. Williams. Jordan. „.,„.c.„„«« S^i"™*!^ RiCHEY & BrODERSEN po.o.,mo aitVtN K. WILUAMb VISALIA CALIFORNIA »J2r« RAIPH B lORDAN Itl Attorneys-At Law THOMAS B RJCHEY 2212 WEST MAIN STREET TEKPHONE THOMASC BRODERSEN VrSALIA. CALIFORNIA 93291 AWATXlH:Challacombe: THCCRCAT River Forest in the 1890's was a tragedy. But what are we to say about the devastation of the TUle River Forest a century later — when we thought we knew better? The shots that Martin Litton has from his aerial overflights of the once magnificent TUle River Forest — which the Forestry holds off limits to the public — are gut-wrenching. The same speechless, angry feeling would sweep over you if you discovered your home and your family had been violated by a drunken intruder. The life support system necessary to the survival of those priceless Sequoias has been stripped away. Long ago a similar fate was dealt the Giant Boole Ttee in Converse Basin. The loggers then had not the heart to cut it, believing it the larg- est in the world. The photographs I have of this monster show that decade by decade it has been dying back because of its lack of ecosystem life support. In 1904 the canopy of the Boole Ttee was full and billowing. Today, its upper trunk and branches are giant spars. It breaks your heart to view the slow demise of this marvel. The loggers tried to save their wonder tree. The men who recently slashed the Tule River Forest, however; have no such heart We decry loudly, and rightly, the loss of Ama- zonian rainforest But at home we wring our hands and make feeble moans when our forest managers desecrate the treasures we hold in trust for the worid. SPIN CONTROL The formulation of both the Park and Forest reserve systems in the late 1890's was a politically-motivated, poorly-conceived affair. Imperfect in conception and with no guidelines, they were nonetheless welcomed as first steps in creating an alternative interface between man and the natural world. The marching orders for the Park Service, for instance, were delayed some 25 years until 1916. Outfitted in 1905 wide- brimmed military hats, the Park Rangers became in our eyes the protective conscience of con- cerned America. Given by default this mantle of noble purpose, their stewardship of the park treasures, especially the Sequoias, has been next to impossible to question. Yet, great trees are dying and falling in the parks because of a MIRROR smoothly calculated indifference whose rubric is 'ecosystem disturbance." In the fledgling Forest Service, the first Chief Forester had a difficult and subtle role to work out It fell to Gifford Pinchot to artfully fashion a double standard for his bureaucracy. The cutting of the huge forests would go on — the economic forces were thought too powerful to be denied. But the destruction would be passed off as wise use. Desertmaking became "sustained yield," 'grove enhancements" and "jobs creation." The devastation would be retail and "regulated" rather than wholesale and "out of control." 'Forest management" was spin control at its finest Smokey the Bear growled, "Stop Forests Fires' but failed to tell us the forests were being saved for the chainsaw. "Sustained yield" and pictures of seedhngs would screen the rapid clearcutting of ancient forests. Even as we speak devastation- style logging proceeds unabated across what remains of those public and "private" forest lands (many the residuals of the 1880's ripoff now sanctified by time). And cosy deals are being struck by which officials after retirement are hired by those they formerly "regulated." All of these ongoing depredations — and how Congress has devoted millions to crisscrossing public forests with roads to which only private logging trucks have main access and how many of these public logs, unprocessed by local mills, are shipped to Asia — has been thoroughly docu- mented by others. You will have papers before you now on how the logging industry has been subsidized incongruously by federal tax dollars. It was the rapacious appetite for this below-cost "wood fiber" that made the Sequoia forests of the Tble River vulnerable to chainsaws and bulldoz- ers. You will also hear from the pragmatic forest managers — for whom the Sequoia is like the Navy, a 20-year hitch and early retirement When challenged, they are quick to order after- the-fact studies from a pliant academia which will cover their actions. Flagged now as 'expert* and 'scientific," they can position themselves beyond public review. When the Paries and Forests were initiated, resorts to belief-systems I I 214 5eQUOIAWaTCH: Challacombe: THEGRCAT promoting themselves as infallible were com- monplace. In the 19th-century it was an estab- lished 'science' to read character from the shape of the skull. And Bibles were printed in the 1890's thiit fixed creation at 4,004 B.C. For all the prestige, proactivism and self- assurance our forest managers exhibit, there is that about them which is superficial, inflexible and unfulfilled. For decades they live with our wonders. But, sadly, the native wit to appreciate the marvels we entrust to them is missing. Locked into a desert-making mind-set, they have proven themselves unready for the 20th, let alone the 21st Century. For them all trees in a "managed" forest are resources for logging. Lost in time, our forest managers see the Sequoias as nothing but "mega-flora." To describe a massive Big Tree grove as a cathedral or a work of art causes them intense pain. Such an image they will dismiss with ridicule as "unscientific." For their career track imagination was never a pre- requisite. THE WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE We come now to the crux of the matter — what makes these giants more in our eyes than just a tree? It is an exceptional person who can walk alone, off trail, deep into a Sequoia forest and not be impressed that he is in the presence of the unusual, exciting, and even threatening. For the early Greeks the Great God Pan dwelt in their forests and had the power to drive men mad. What is there about the Sequoia forest that catches up man and plunges him into the primordial? Most of us live the city life — as aliens several times removed from the natural world. We think of ourselves as a series of regrets, accomplish- ments and hopes — that is, as a series of yester- days and tomorrows. We are largely oblivious to what is occurring right now, moment to mo- ment Nature, however is nothing if not moment to moment processes and happenings — or what we can call "real-time" events. Ernest Hemingway called facii^ the charge of an African lion "a moment of truth." In that very instant of real-time there can be no evasion or dissembling. All attempts to escape into designer tomorrows and specious belief systems masquer- MIRROR ading as "science" come unglued. Not many of us will go to Africa to face a roaring lion. And why should we when we have Sequoias at hand? They can scare you good, but they won't bite. Considei; for a moment, the Disney theme parks in Florida, in France and in Orange County. We travel hundreds, thousands of miles to experience prefabricated, designer "frontiers." We explore the unknowns which have "an- swers." We fi"ighten ourselves with "rides" and other happenings which challenge our sense of scale and what is "normal." And to escape to such artificial "frontiers" from our city world we pay dearly. So why are we destrojring Sequoia Forests to keep a small mill running, to create a few low- skilled jobs and to supply wood fiber for Japan? Are we mad, bhnd or catatonic? If anyone were serious about "selling the Sequoia" — deriving a sustained revenue and jobs fi'om them — he certainly would not be stupid enough to cut them down or to ruin the forest ecosystem that sustains them. The Sequoia Forests supply the waters that nourish the valley agriculture. But even more they supply a vital element which is missing from our urban hves. And that is the challenge and excitement of a tangible fi:ontier — namely, whatevei; like the charge of the hon, lies unex- pected beyond the familiar and quantifiable. These ancient trees are tied into man's psy- chology in an uncanny way. They evoke what is latent in our nature, but long discouraged by western cultures. Early man lived, as an individual and a com- munity, on the edge of wilderness and the not- known. Unlike ourselves he sought to expand his understanding of whatever challenged him. His mind being focussed in real-time, early man was no dumb savage, but a subtle watcher of his environment Often his life and his community depended on his skills of seeing the unexpected, of observing minute changes. It was in such a time-environment that man as crafty, intelligent hunter-gatherer lived down to the end of the last Ice Age — before we, as peasants and urban cutificers, began alienating time, warring with J 215 5EQUOIAWATCH:Challacombe: THE GREAT each other, and mutilating the planet Man needs wilderness even as his body needs clean water. Interacting with the strange, his mind expands and thrives. Faced only with the indexed and tamiliar, his mind suffocates. A few hundred thousand years ago, man's brain evolved rapidly to a larger size. What role, one wonders, did our long, intense interaction with the unfamiliar — i.e., wilderness — play in this phenomenon? That which we know of creation is minuscule. Libraries we have without end, but they are as a blurred page to what remains to be puzzled out and described. The Sequoia, in its glory and mystery, stands as a grand, provocative metaphor for what we have yet to discover about creation. Even the soil which supports the Sequoia teems with un- known processes. The venture into the Sequoia forest is our return to the natural frontier, to the unex- plained, to the challenge of nature's world. The Sequoia is our evolutionary experience revisited. The urban mind, when plunged into the vast, vertiginous Sequoia wilderness — with no scale of size for reassurance — can be seized with something very close to panic. But this fright is a wholesome and most necessary experience. For, as of old, the mind is being forced to reach for a fresh understanding — to try for a paradigm yet to be articulated. Whenever man's mind breaks from his cul- tural inher itance and perceives what genera- tions have overlooked, he experiences one of life's rare vahdations. Archimedes knew such when he leaped from his tub and shouted, 'Eu- reka." It is then that the world suddenly en- larges; the individual feels Nature has addressed him specially. That spine-tingling encounter with the un- measured and wordless, which early man trea- sured, still waits for you in the trackless Sequoia retreats. Our forest managers, crippled from lack of im^nation, prefer you think of "their" Se- quoias as 19th-century exploitable resources. I would have us consider them as a link with our deep past and as provocateurs of that lively, resilient, inquiring, inventive, wondering mind MIRROR of discovery we must have to forge into the 21 st Century and beyond. If we can create Disneylands and their fantas- tic, but fake 'frontiers," would it really lie be- yond our genius to conceive of discrete ways to offer the genuine article — the real frontier experience itself — through a Sequoia encounter? Tourism, rightly managed, certainly promises the opportunity of more jobs, multilateral economic returns and worldwide approbation than does the heartless destruction of what can never be replaced. Consider just California's growth and de- mands on the Sierra wilderness — to say nothing of tourists by the hundreds of thousands arriving from Asia and Europe. The established Sequoia reserves are no longer remote but have become "day parks" for Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno, Merced, Modesto and other Valley cities. To this pressure add the populations of the Bay Area and Southern California which weekend in these mountains. The 19th-century idea of the Sierra as an endless wilderness to cut was not good then and is brain-dead now. Who will pay to camp, fish and hike in a desert of stumps? Greater than a few transient jobs is the pubhc's need for mountains as mountains, undestroyed, inviting and wonderful. And what of our troubled youth? Many in the 1930's, and more recently, found work in the great forests of the Sierra a healing passage between urban anomie and a productive matu- rity. These forests require an intensive care system yet to be formulated. What better merger of needs, then, than youth finding individuality and the forest assisted to live alongside the new urban realities? THE IMAGE IN THE MIRROR These 300-foot red-barked monsters survive from an age when the earth knew not man but bred many robust species. The Big Tirees were coeval with the dinosaurs and other fasci- nating life forms lost to the world millions of years ago. Only on the isolated, specialized plateaus and ridges of Cahfomia's Sierra Ne- vada— like an island in time — were the largest of the primeval trees, the Sequoias, able to hold on until the present 216 5EQUOIA WaTCH: Challacombe: THC GREAT MIRROR But now these wonders are mortally threat- ened. The institutions bom of poHtical expediency in the 1890's serve us poorly. Both the Park Service and the Forest Service are proven anach- ronisms, relics of 19th-century closed-system thinking. Today, each bureaucracy functions primarily to perpetuate itself The Big Trees suffer — in the National Parks, and most espe- cially in the National Forests. Should we not — indeed, must we not gather the few precious forests which remain to us, draw a line of defense around them, and reserve them as one ecological whole? We would cer- tainly do as much for a great battlefield on which the course of man's history was forever changed. Indeed, who among us would think of constructing a shopping mall at Gettysburg? Further, we need to redefine how our for- ests— Sequoia, mixed conifer and hardwood — are cared for The narrowly-focused specialists must be supervised by minds with broad land- scape concerns, a grasp of nonindustrial, non- invasive forestry and a willingness to incorporate public review and participation. The ancients deserve better We need them as com- plete forests. Certainly not to satisfy the 19th- century ambitions of a few. The Sequoias long ago did us a great service. Dare we look again into the great mirror? Friends, what shall it be? Are we locked into a status quo? Oi; can we boldly reinvent our relationship with the natural world? 01994, J. R. Challacombe 217 STATEMENT of Daniel P. Christenson regarding the GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1993 H.R. 2153 9 March 1994 I am a professional biologist with 37 years of experience in the area which encompasses all the groves of giant Sequoia trees (Sequoiadendron gjganteum) of California. I have read the text of the bill proposing establishment of the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve (H.R. 2153) and support its enactment. I attained a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries from Humboldt State College in 1956 with some post-graduate studies at California State University, Fresno. I have worked as a biologist (California Department of Fish and Game) since 1957 in the fields of; stream and lake habitat restoration and improvement; evaluation of water projects and land developments; water quality investigation and control; fisheries management, research, restoration, protection and supervision; and endangered species research, restoration and protection (especially the recovery of the Little Kem golden trout, Oncorhynchus mvkiss whitei. a federally listed Threatened Species which is endemic to a portion of Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park) . The geographic area in which I have worked, and with which I am familiar, includes; the southern Sierra Nevada from the Stanislaus River drainage (Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties) in the north to the Kern River drainage (Tulare and Kern Counties) in the south; The San Joaquin Valley and Coast Rauige from 218 Statement of Daniel P. Christenson 9 March 1994 page two Stanislaus County in the north to Kern County in the south; and the western Mojave Desert in Kern, San Bernardino, Inyo and Los Angeles Counties. This area, in the Sierra Nevada, includes the entire range of the giant Sequoia species. At various times since 1957 I have worked with fish and wildlife resources in Stanislaus National Forest , Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, Yosemite National Park, Kings Canyon National Park and Sequoia National Park. My present area of responsibility covers the eastern portion of Tulare County and all of Kern County, including the Tule River and Kern River drainages, most of the Sequoia National Forest and a major part of the Sequoia National Park. A large number of Sequoia groves lie within this area.-' t My major concern is for the condition of our natural resources. I am dedicated to the protection of these resources for our future generations and thus am interested in the enactment of H.R. 2153. I have witnessed degraded conditions of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the national forests on which I have worked. It is my opinion that most, if not all, of the degradation is due to the activities of man. Especially by the grazing of domestic livestock, road construction, soil disturbance and vegetation removal or damage. These activities presently occur in Sequoia groves to varying degrees and are contributing to changes in the natural ecosystems there. The effects of timber harvest are three fold, from road 219 Statement of Daniel P. Christenson 9 March 1994 page three construction, operation of heavy machinery in forest areas and by vegetation removal. The usual mode of timber harvest requires access by roads. Road construction in mountainous terrain contributes to erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation and water quality degradation. The cut-and-fill method of road construction on hillsides exposes bare soil to the erosive action of rain and snow-melt. It also results in steepened banks which further increases the risk of erosion. The compacted road surface prevents percolation of rain or snow-melt water into the underground. The resulting over-land water flow carries sand and silt and is generally concentrated and diverted off the roads causing gully erosion down-slope. The use of heavy machinery in removing logs from the forest disturbs soils which exposes them to the effects of wind and water erosion. It also disturbs the protective layer of forest litter or mulch. The piling and burning of logging slash and debris subsequent to a timber harvest operation results in additional soil damage aaid increased exposure to erosion, not to mention the air quality problems of smoke. Timber harvest in the southern Sierra, in essence, is the killing and removing of coniferous trees. In the process a great deal of other vegetation is destroyed. Trees that are too small or defective for lumber production and brush and other species are usually burned or left stacked on logging sites. The effects of removing trees and other forest vegetation include 220 Statement of Daniel P. Christenson 9 March 1994 page four accelerated run-off of snow-melt and rain and desiccation of soils from exposure to sunlight. This results in higher than normal stream flows during peak run-off periods and reduced flows during minimum base-flow periods. The higher flows cause stream bank erosion and stream sedimentation and reduced water quality. Base-flow is a critical element of a healthy stream ecosystem and a major limiting factor in trout production. This base-flow is dependent upon stored ground-water in order to persist throughout the dry summer season. Vegetation removal results in accelerated run-off and desiccation of soils, both of which reduce ground-water storage and thus negatively impact stream ecosystems . The greatest dirfect impacts to stream habitats are from cattle grazing, which damages or destroys riparian vegetation, tramples stream banks, and degrades water quality. Riparian vegetation such as willows and grasses stabilize stream banks and provide cooling shade, provide protective cover for trout and other aquatic organisms, provide habitat for some trout food organisms and benefit mamy other wildlife species. Damage to riparian vegetation by cattle alters stream ecosystems and degrades aquatic habitat values. Trampling of banks by cattle causes alterations to stream channel conformation which reduces the amount of protective cover for trout. Cattle contribute to water quality degradation through soil disturbance and subsequent erosion which results in the introduction of sand and silt to 221 Statement of Daniel P. Christenson 9 March 1994 page five streams, by stream bank trampling which also introduces sediments and by depositing feces and urine in streams. These factors degrade spavming and cover conditions for trout, reduce production of trout food organisms and generally degrade water quality. In my experience I have found some Forest Service personnel to be non-receptive or sometimes even antagonistic to fish and wildlife and habitat protection. I believe the current forest practices of timber harvest and cattle grazing in the southern Sierra are detrimental to the welfare of the natural forest ecosystem. In conclusion, I believe that the enactment of H.R. 2153 will encourage the protection and restoration of the forest and aquatic ecosystems of the giant Sequoia groves. It should incorporate all remaining groves within the various National Forests to maximize the benefits to natural ecosystem protection. Restoration of natural conditions should be the primary mauiagement goal. I would be willing to assist the Giant Sequoia Scientific Advisory Board in the implementation of its purposes, including serving as a member if that were to be considered. Respectively submitted, Uh..^/^^X'^^ Dciniel P. Christenson, Biologist Post Office Box 3737 Wofford Heights, California 93285 80-635 0 -94 -8 222 William Croft, (+44) 61-445 1210, Individual, Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, 3 /3/94 My name is William Croft; I am currently a senior research fellow in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Manchester. I am an American citizen, a native and longtime resident of California, and a member of the Council of the Save-the-Redwoods League. I am submitting this testimony as an individual who has spent a great deal of time in the giant sequoias. Since 1987, 1 have visited seventeen of the thirty-one groves or parts of groves in Sequoia National Forest, including all of the largest groves and almost all of the groves in which logging has occurred in the past decade. I have also collected data on the sequoia groves and their status from various publications. National Forest and other correspondence, conversations with Forest Service personnel, representatives of environmental groups, and users of the sequoia groves, and also my own personal observations. Based on the most recent estimates available to me, there are approximately 15,000 acres of giant sequoias on Sequoia National Forest, half of the total occurrence of these trees. In 1982, prior to recent logging activity, there were 21 virgin sequoia groves making up 8800 acres (58% of die Forest Service total). This acreage is equal to the virgin sequoia acreage in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park; that is, half of the remaining virgin sequoia groves in 1982 were outside of the National Parks. Most of the remaining sequoia acreage in Sequoia National Forest, largely in the Hume Lake District north of Sequoia National Park, was logged of its sequoias and other species at the turn of the century. The largest and finest virgin groves remaining are south of Sequoia National Park in the Tule River drainage, near Highway 190 and the Great Divide Highway east of Porterville. The sequoia groves in Sequoia National Forest are of great recreational and scientific value. Their recreational value is underutiUzed compared to the National Park groves. The accessible sequoia groves in the National Parks are very heavily used. Grant Grove and Giant Forest are developed. Many of the remaining groves are inaccessible even by trail. The National Forest sequoia groves are as beautiful as the Park groves and very lightly used. Almost all of them are accessible by two-wheel-drive road. The Middle Tule River, where the finest National Forest groves are found, flows in a spectacular gorge and there is great potential for recreational development. Nor are the sequoias themselves much smaller than those in the National Park. The Boole Tree in Converse Basin is the eighth largest living thing, and only last fall Dwight Willard found a tree that is around the same size as the Boole in nearby Kennedy Grove; there may be others in these less- explored groves. The recreational value of the Sequoia National Forest groves only increases with the massive growth of population in California and the United States in general. I have found these groves to 223 William Croft, (+44) 61-445 1210, Individual, Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, 3 /3/94 be a welcome alternative to the National Park groves, a place where one can find peace, solitude and a glimpse of the sequoias as the Native Americans and first white explorers saw them. The great rarity of these superb groves alone is worth their preserving. The scientific value of the sequoia groves is at least as great. The sequoia groves constitute a rare remnant of old-growth Sierra mixed- conifer forest, home to many bird and animal species that are in danger of extinction, such as the fisher, pine marten, California spotted owl and goshawk. They provide nesting sites for the Federally endangered California condor. The sequoia's closest forest associate is the sugar pine, the largest pine in the world, whose future is threatened by insects, disease and periods of drought. The recreational and scientific value of the sequoia groves are enough to merit their protection. As part of the general timber base of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, the sequoia groves do not possess statutory protection. However, the Forest Service for the most part refrained from logging in the giant sequoia groves and in particular in the virgin sequoia groves. In fact, in the 1950s the Forest Service engaged in several land exchanges in order to preserve many sequoia groves that were in private inholdings and were directly threatened by logging. (Those groves that were not transferred to pubhc ownership, such as Dillonwood Grove, were logged and even clearcut of their magnificent sequoias in the 1940s and 1950s.) Yet in the 1980s, the Forest Service abandoned its own regulations that "protected" the virgin giant sequoia groves, and logged intensively until halted by pubhc outcry and legal action. From 1982 to 1987, the Forest Service logged at least 1800 acres of 9 virgin groves totalling 3080 acres in size (acreage estimates based on my field observations). Logging was concentrated in the largest groves; many of the small (under 200 acres) groves have clearcuts next to them. At least 1000 acres were clearcut except for large giant sequoias and 8(X) acres were selectively logged. Groves that the Forest Service "saved" from logging in the 1950s were logged by the same Forest Service in the 1980s. Also, a small unit of second-growth sequoias were clearcut in one grove (Converse Basin). This was all done at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. The American people lost on all counts; recreation, biological value, and timber value. AH three ranger districts in Sequoia National Forest that contain sequoias saw logging activity deliberately targeting the sequoia groves. In the Hume Lake District, second-growth giant sequoias were clearcut in Converse Basin, once the finest giant sequoia grove existing. Logging of all trees but the sequoias was done right up to the Kings Canyon National Park boundary, just across from the finest stand of sequoias in Redwood Mountain grove — not unlike the rapacious actions of the timber companies next to Redwood National Park in the 1960s and 224 William Croft, (+44) 61-445 1210, Individual, Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, 3 /3/94 1970s. In the Bearskin grove, a giant sequoia fell in 1990 apparently from wind, seven years after logging, which demonstrates that the isolated giant sequoias remaining have a precarious future. In the Tule River District, vast tracts of one of the finest groves, Black Mountain Grove, were logged, and logging was planned in the two most popular recreational groves, Mclntyre and Freeman Creek Groves. Replanting of giant sequoias has not been successful due to heat and dessication of sequoia seedlings in the exposed areas. (This area is in the sothemmost part of the sequoia's range.) In the CaUfomia Hot Springs District, timber sales were unnecessarily placed exactly in the Peyrone Grove in an otherwise virgin timber area, and logging occurred in a grove with a California condor nest, a violation of the Endangered Species Act in spirit if not in letter. At least one grove (Long Meadow Grove) was replanted with a monoculture Ponderosa pine plantation, demonstrating that the Forest Service intended to relog the area, not to "enhance sequoia regrowth", their official reason for logging the groves. These actions demonstrate that the Forest Service, if left to its own regulations, will not respect the scientific and recreational values of the giant sequoia groves. The latest Forest Plan prohibits logging in the giant sequoia groves. However, it was adopted only after a lawsuit and eighteen months of grueling mediation. It will last only for the planning period, no more than ten or fifteen years. Even this plan allows virtually the entire Converse Basin (2500 acres) to be logged of its second-growth giant sequoias. The Forest Service protected the giant sequoias by its regulations for thirty years, but when it changed its mind, it simply discarded the regulations and logged indiscriminately. The only solution to prevent this from happening again, and to allow the damaged groves to recover, is to legislate statutory protection. H.R. 2153, the bill under consideration at these hearings, will provide exactly that protection. The giant sequoia groves in Sequoia National Forest occur in small stands that cannot survive as ecological units by themselves if surrounded by clearcut land. H.R. 2153 calls for a giant sequoia preserve that will ensure the survival of the sequoia groves as parts of the Sierran mixed conifer ecosystem. The mixed conifer forest of the Sierras is one of the greatest forests I have walked in, and is quite distinct in composition from its more famous brethren in the Pacific Northwest. The beauty and peace of these forests is a major part of these forest's value to the American people. This is a resource which is renewed every time my family or any American walks in them, and which can last unbroken in time for endless generations; but only if their biological health is preserved. This requires the inclusion of the watersheds in which the sequoia groves are found, and that is accounted for in H.R. 2153. It also requires the proper management of fire in the forest, in order to prevent conflagrations such as those that 225 William Croft. (+44) 61-445 1210, Individual, Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, 3 /3/94 occurred in Yellowstone and Yosemite. The bill also includes provisions for fire management, along the lines of the fire management in groves in Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks and in Calaveras Bigtrees State Park. H.R. 2153 calls for a review of existing roads without the addition of new roads. I can assure you that there are more than enough roads for access to the giant sequoia groves; I have had no difficulty in reaching almost any grove I wanted to, even with a two-wheel drive vehicle. H.R. 2153 also mandates a recreation plan which includes the possible creation of new trails and campgrounds. This is badly needed. Many sequoia groves have no trails, and existing trails have deteriorated — a further reflection of the emphasis on timber management. The bill ameliorates the economic effects of the establishment of the preserve through transfer payments to local governments and aid to displaced workers. These economic effects must be placed in their proper context. The US taxpayer is already paying for the losses incurred by the timber sales on Sequoia National Forest in real dollars. In addition to the direct financial losses brought about by timber sales, there are the equally real financial losses to many people because of other resources that are destroyed by logging, including fisheries, water quality for agriculture and urban use, and recreation. These losses will end with the establishment of the preserve. It is only right that some of the monies saved by H.R. 2153 will go to aid those individuals whose economic livelihoods might be disrupted by passage of the bill. Also, the acreage set aside in the preserve is only a fraction of the Sierran mixed- conifer forest acreage. The only other significant acreage of Sierran mixed-conifer forest in which logging is prohibited is found in the western part of Sequoia National Park. The vast majority — millions of acres — of the Sierran mixed-conifer forest is actively managed timber land, in both National Forest and private ownership. I urge Congress to guarantee protection of these magnificent and maligned groves. This is an opportunity for the American people that should not, indeed cannot, be missed. 226 J. Neil Fembau^ P.O. Box 3086 Visalia. Ca. 93278 (209) 625-3205 U. S. House of Representatives /Vgriculture Cotnmiltee. Subcommittee on .Specialty Crops and Natural Resources Washington, U.C. Dear .Subcommittee Members: Please accept my testimony in favor of Congressman George Brown's H. R. 2153, Cianl Sequoia Preservation Act. If these hearings arc to be of any use to you, I think ifs important that you have a variety of perspectives. My personal involvement in these proceedings begins with childhood visits to the Giant Sequoia in both the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park, and spans almost a half century of persoiul experience. I am not a scientist, but I am a witness. Since childhood I have \isited somewhere between a third and a half of the existing Groves of Giant Sequoia. Some of these Groves are at least a day's hike from the nearest road, others, thanks to Forest Service mismanagement, are on badly eroded timber harvest highways. .A^ a child 1 sat in my family's 47 Dodge near the Kings Canyon Grove of Sequoia while hundreds of deer paraded past our car. blocking the General's Highway during their migratioiL Nowhere in the forest now can you find such huge numbers of deer. The forest has not been managed for the hunter or for the young amateur naturahst I once was. 'V^liere my father would have found plenty, today's hunter finds almo.st nothing. As a young adull I delighted in discovering the farthest reaches of Sequoia in places like the Redwood Meadow Grove a day's hike over Timber Gap north of Mineral King, and a dav's hike Irom the nearest road. In my mid-forties I became the Chair of ihe Kem-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, and it fell to me to initiate the original lawsuits against the Sequoia Forest that have cuhniiiated in Congressman Brown's legislation. In the early 1980s a number of local cabin owners, nearby residents, and visitors to Sequoia Forest came to the Sierra Club complaining of Forest mismanagement. Tliey documented abuse atter abuse, brought us pictures, and tinally convinced us to look at failed timber plantations, silled up and eroded streams, and bulldozed Sequoias. Most of us lud no idea any such harvests had been going on. We had known that timber harvest had been a part of the I'orest Service program, but we had no idea of either the 227 incompelence or ihe massive stale ofloviginv; ihal had lakcn place. Dnving ttirough tlic forest, as most of us do. gives little sense of how badly it is mismanaged. It look a flighl over ihe foresl lo convince us. Few people realize ihal ihc limber harvest on Sequoia Forest basically takes place on a small portion of the forest" s acreage. The major timber producuig area of the forest is on a small plateau situated between Sequoia and Kings Can>on Nahonal Parks, and on a single north-south running ridge that makes up the e.xtreme south end of the Sierra Nevada. Virtually half the existing groves of Sequoia are in small pockets in those two areas, sandwiched between clearcuts harvested over th< past two decades. L nlike the pnstme forests 1 sought out twenty years ago, many ofthe Groves I've visited in the last several years have been raped or destroyed. There is no excuse for this destruction, and I urge you to .ict quickly to preserve what remains. I'or any number of reasons, restoration projects should begin now. It should not be difficult to convince you that the publicity and testimony ofthe opponents of this legislation are misinformed. Those of us who are seeking protection for the Sequoias have no intention of taking private in holdings, or even of overturning existing leases of cabins and recreational permits on ihe foresi. UT DO BELIEVE TH.A.T }vLAN.A.GEME>rr OF THIS FOREST FOR DISPERSED RECRE.A.TION .AND PROTECTION OF THE SEQUOLA. GO H.-AND IN H.AND. We are NOT advocating turning this forest into a National .Monument which would have eliminated hunting and some ORV use. We believe there is a place for in holdings, lease holdings, hunting, fishing, and even ORV use m tiiis forest. What must stop now is the continued commercial harvest of timber on this forest. Please understand that many of us who advocate this legislation are not opposed to the harvest of timber from all national forest lands. Unfortunately, even though we may have believed initially that a more limited sustained harvest might be possible on this forest, events of the past eight years have proven otherwise. A number of independent .studies have estimated the sustainable yield of this forest to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-30 million board feet of timber. Over the last several decades timber hanest has proceeded at three to four times that rate. Since our initial suits and protests, decades of limber needed for that sustained yield have already been harvested. Il is time to say no more. Trees that would take a hundred years to grow in the northwest would take at least fiRv years longer to grow here. The Southern Sierra is almost a desert. Five lo seven straight years of drought easily destroy whole plantations of replacement trees. The Forest Service and tunber industry lias continued to over-liai^'est tiie forest, and so we must insist that no commercial harvest at all is the ONL"\' way to restore the forest. It is liard tor us. humans with less tlian one hundred year's lile span, to consider the lite span of things still living that grew up before Clirisfs birth. I would invite each of you to come walk with me amongst trees that were giants before Clinst's birth. 1 cannot believe you would liave so little reverence for God's creation to not insist on tlieir preservation. When \ou are considering the vast size ofthe preserve, and worry of its size compared with 228 the iiinaller ag-reage of living Sequoia, please consider this. In the last decade, scientists have taken COTC samples from Crescent Meadow, in the very heart of the densest of Sequoia Groves, and discovered through pollen counts and carbon dating, that less than 3500 years ago, Sequoias were a very small part of the local fauna. You must imd«rstand that Sequoia Groves move, however slowly, and we must make room for their movement. Furthermore, please remember that the Sequoia are a "dinosaur" remnant of an ancient species that used to cover much of the west. EACH INDIVIDUAL GROVE HAS BEEN SEPARATED FROM ITS NEIGHBORING GROVES FOR AT LEvVST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YE^VRS. Each Grove has its own gene pool hiding God KNOWS what secrets. Llmderstand that the 1 orest Service has been planting seedlings from God knows what foreign gene pool. Sequoias reproduce only from other trees within a few hundred feet of each other. Unless the newly planted Sequoia come from seed stock out of the nearby, existing grove, the Fwest Service is destroying the integrity of each grove. If we had time. I could take you to iimumerable examples of Forest Service mismanagement and incompetence. Neither President Bush's Proclamation, or the Mediated Settlement that our local congressmen have touted as a solution have had a major effect on this mismanagement. You must understand too that it was the more conservative elements of the local environmental community who rejected the Mediated Settiement. Lifetime Republican conservationists like Carla Cloer and Martin Litton, and quiet moderate groups like the local Audubon society, as well as local community groups like the Sequoia .\lliance and the Tule River Conservancy refused to sign on, while more radical groups like the Sierra Club and NRDC jumped at the chance to look good. The people supporting H.R. 2153 are not radicals. The entire Mediated Settlement process was a joke. .'Uana Knaster. the mediator, moved at least one of the hearings several hundred miles away where local concerned parties, with the exception of professional timber industry- staff could not attend. Despite the fact that two women. Charlene Little and Carla Cloer, had the most expertise of any "laymen," Forest .Service staff and other mediation parties worked to discredit them and keep them out of negotiations. Once the mediated settlement was signed, little changed. Loopholes kept popping up whenever violations of the spirit and intent of the agreement helped the Forest Service or the timber industry. .At one point a timber sale was advertised in what I believe is called the Mclnlyre Grove of Sequoias. The maps clearly show sections within the Grove being offered for sale. It took the personal intervention of an independent forester to see the tree maricers torn down. The mediated Settlement committed the forest to following more sound science. Virtually half way througli tlie ten year plan that the settlement covered, virtually none of tliose studies has been done that would really change timber harvest practices. Tlie reforestation report which should govern how fast trees are harvested has been shown to be completely inaccurate. Furthermore, while the agreement allowed for continued hardest of salvage wood (from wildfires and disease), the industry has been observed liarvesting healthy green trees from amongst the 229 ijUind of distmsetJ and dead . Il would lake several hour; of leslimonv and reams of paper lo explain the number of substantive and procedural ways the Mediated Settlement has failed. Our local Congressmen have also failed lo mention thai lawsuits and appeals continue despite the Mediated Settlement. In short 1. Tlie Mediated Settlement so highly praised by Congressmen Dooley, Lehman, and Thomas, is a fraud. It will only last a few more years, and neither timber industry or environmental groups are likely to come to the negotiating table agam. ITie mediated Settlement addressed a 1980s Forest Management Plan. It is not even legally binding on the parties right now. 2. I>espite what the Forest Service says, they are not protecting the Sequoias now. In about 1990 a biologi.st from Florida, I -auric McDonald came out to survey Sequoia rove boundaries. She found many healthy Sequoias outside of Forest Service Grove boundaries, including one giant more than 1/2 mile from the nearest Grove. In its last issue, the local Valley Voice (a twice monthly publication), reported the finding, or "re" finding, of an ancient Sequoia in the Forest that rivals the General Sherman in size. These Sequoias were not on any F.S. map. 3. The testimony you have received against the bill because it "locked up" the forest, are simply untrue. .Any implication in the bill that any landholder or lease- holder, would lose their existing property right or use, that hunters would be dramatically ettected. On the western border of Sequoia Park, at the dividing line between the Park and Sequoia Forest you can fine a definitive example of the two agency's management pracrices. From the west, the fire burned up the mountain out of control. As one looks west today from the summit, one can see the Red spires are now burned torches that burned like roman candles. BUT, w^ere the fire entered the national park, it died, and no major flare-ups caught any of the giants in the park- Controlled lire is clearly the method of choice for management within Sequoia Groves. All of the Forest Service arguments about needing future commercial timber harvest to save the Sequoia Groves are totally specious. Conunercial mechanized harvest should not be a fuluie opticML I would be happy to clarify or respond to any of your sub-comittee's questions or concerns. Thank You J. Neil Fenibaueh 230 I Dear Congressman Rose, I would like these comments and attached aocuments to be in- cluded in the 0-f-ficial Record of the hearing held before the Subcommitee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources on March 9. 1994 regarding HR-2153, The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993. My name is Joe Fontaine. I live in Tehachapi California and teach High School in Bakersfield California. My family has lived in and near the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains since the 1850s. One of my earliest recollections as a child was visiting a grove of Giant Seauoia trees in the 1930s. During my entire adult life I have periodically visited various Giant Seauoia Groves in Sequoia National Forest for recreation, quiet, and solitude. I joined the Sierra Club in 1962 because of what 1 believed to be over cutting in Sequoia National Forest. I served as the Sierra Club National President from 1980-1982. I had been told by past Supervisors of Sequoia National Forest that there were no plans to log in or around these groves and thus I had no concern about their protection. Therefore, I was outraged and dismayed to find in the 19a0s that the Forest Serv- ice, with no warning to the public, was clearcutting in the groves. Only giant specimen trees were spared in the midst of complete removal of all vegetation down to the bare soil. The Sierra Club at the request of its local memoers filed a lawsuit that successfully stooped the clearcutting in the groves. In the late 1980s when the Forest Service proposed a new Land Management Plan (LMP) for Sequoia National Forest I helped the Sierra Club prepare an appeal of the LMP. Some of my statements in that appeal are attached to this written testimony. The Forest Service, the Sierra Club, and tne other appellants agreed to mediate their differences over the LMP. I was one of the main negotiators for the Sierra Club. An agreement known as the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) was finally achieved and I urged the Sierra Club to sign it which it did. Because I was intimately involved in the negotiations 1 believe I am i n a position to accurately characterize the MSA. Claims have been made that by supporting HR-2153 before vou now the Sierra Club and other environmental appelants 3.re violating the spirit of the MSA. I categorically deny that charge. Opponents of HR-2153 are misrepresenting the MSA in order to discredit tne bill and its supporters. Before the LMP was announced the Sierra CluP had made several legal challenges to timber sales in Sequoia National Forest. It was our contention that the Forest Service had inadequate infor- mation to prove those sales would not do permaent damage to the Forest. The MSA was a compromise. We agreed to withdraw our legal challenge to the timber sales if the Forest Service would do additional studies to acquire the scientific information to 231 .lusti-fy further logging in Sequoia National Forest. A tempoary annual cut of 75MMBF was aqreea to until these studies were done. Tne annual cut was then to be reevaluated in view of more com- plete information to try and establish a permanent cut in the Forest. By releasing the sales we had challenged a supply of timber could flow to the mills while the studies were being done. We in effect traded our legal challenges to those sales in ex- change +or additional scientific studies that the Forest Service should have done in the first place. it was expected the provisions of the MSA would take two years to complete. Then the MSA would be incorporated into the LMP using the NEPA orocess. During that time the mills would have an adeguate timber supply and tne Forest Service would get badly needed information to use for long term management decisions asbout timber harvest. This summer it will be four vears since tne MSA was signed. Vet most of the studies and none of the reevaluations of the annual timber harvest have been done. If it had not been for the interim guidelines to protect the California Spotted Owl imposed by Region 5 of the Forest Service 75MMBF of timber would still continue to be cut in Sequoia National Forest in spite of the continuing lack of information the Forest Service promised to obtain. Outside of Sootted Owl habitat in the Forest timber sales still continue to be offered at an alarming rate. We kept our half of the bargain bv releasing the timber sales while the Forest Service has not completed its promised studies. Now we Are being accused violating an agreement tnat was never intended to be permanent because we are supportng HR-2153. The annual cut of 75MMBF was not based upon any science whatso- ever. It is a number that was bargained across the table bv the appellants to the LMP and the Forest SErvice. It was only to be a temporary cut until the studies the Forest Service agreed to do were done. These studies were to be used to reexamine the vield tables so an annual cut the Forest could sustain permanently could be established. The yield tables for the Forest have never been reviewed because the requisite studies have never been done. The vast reduction in timber harvest from the part of the Forest where the Sootted Owl is found helos substnatiate our contention that the 75MMBF annual cut was too high. We sre con- vinced that if and when the other studies are done they Will point to the same conclusion. The cut on Sequoia National Forest has been far too high for many years and that continued intensive logging in the Forest will oestrov tne ecosystems that so many species of plants and animals and recreation depend upon. Claims r\A\/e also been made that the MSA and the Presidential Proclimation have orotected the Slant Seguoias. The Groves sre protected only by a 500 ft buffer strip and an additional 500 ft buffer where intensive logging is prohibited. These buffers were 232 merely bargained across the table by laymen with little or no knowledge o-f the conditions necessary to preoetuate the Broves. In +act no one knows what the Giant Sequoias reauire over the long run. We do know the Sroves have migrated in the past -from studies done on cores taken -from nearby meadows. Perhaps this happened m response to climatic change. A Symposium on Giant Sequoias held in 1992 in Visalia Caii-fornia showed how little we know about them. Concern has been expressed about disturbance to soils -from logging and road building above the Groves. Even the Forest Service aarees we do not know nearly enough to manage the Groves ■for permanent protection. 1-f enacted HR-2153 would protect the Groves and their surround- ing -forests -from the e-f-fects ot intensive management and logging. The Forest Service continues to o+ter timoer sales in the vicini- ty ot the Groves. They have told me many times in the past the Graves would be protected and yet look what happened: clear cutting in and around the Groves. They now admit that was a mistake. Now it is claimed that a 500 -ft no entry buf-fer will protect them. The fact is no one knows what must be done to protect them permanently. HR-2153 would prevent roadbuilding and logging in that part of the Forest where the Groves s.re -found and provide f-or the scien- tific study necessary for their long term well being. Congress must pass HR-2153 and direct the management of the Forest where the Giant Sequoias are found to prevent a repeat of the mistakes of the past. Joe Fontaine (Attachment follows:) 233 blEKKA CLlJpy.j^|i:-;^-^£RlS|.KAvVEAH CHAPTER .m exploitative logging practices, as well as from the increasing effects of fire suppression, air pollution, grazing and drought After spending several years ground reviewing this management crisis, it is evident to me that Sequoia National Forest (SNF) managers are still obsessed with squandering this international treasure on themselves and a single mill. Sierra Forest Products. Consequently, I am asking Congress to move The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, H.R. 2153, forward to help protect the ancient Sequoia groves and surrounding habitat from further subsidized resource exploitation. 238 Stop Logging in the Sequoias As the volunteer director of the Public Forestry Foundation, a not-for-profit coalition of resource professionals and citizens dedicated to promoting socially responsible forestry, I urge Congress to act swiftly to help a misguided agency to care for one of America's most sacred places. Out of 28 other National Forests our Foundation has worked in, the SNF is the only one we are petitioning Congress to stop all commercial logging in. As I tell this committee why there should be no more commercial logging in the Sequoia National Forest, bear in mind that I still make my living in the woods, often managing logging operations. My family is supported by timber dollars and I am not against prudent public logging. Here, then, are some of my many reasons why we should stop commercial logging in the SNF by supporting H.R. 2153: • Logging in the SNF is costing American taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Gifford Pinchot, the first Forest Service Qiief said that prudent logging should pay for itself. As a private forester I can verify that true "conmiercial" logging always returns a profit to the forest owner. Commercial logging in the SNF has caused some of the highest average deficit returns of any Pacific National Forest In 1993, only 4 bidders bid sales, resulting in 94% of the stimipage going to two companies. These small companies combined made minimal, almost immeasurable, returns to regional economies. Why, I ask, are we continuing to log the Sequoia Forest at a loss? • Poor Logging Practices Logging, particularly over the last 25 years, in the Sequoia National Forest is some of the roughest I've seen. There has been little visible effort to minimize heavy machinery impacts on dry hillsides or moist streamsides. Massive soU disturbance and compaction, riparian degradation, and log wastage and breakage are often far out of proportion to the net volumes of timber removed and paid for. Qearcutting (in any form) and slash burning have converted many fc»«sted sites bade to chaparral or desert A quarter of a century of emphasis on getting the cut out is, in my expert opinion, best diaracterized as heavy- handed highgrading. • Current commercial logging practices in the SNF are not biologically sustainable or economically renewable. When PFFs diief forester reviewed die forest inventory, harvest levels and rotations suggested by the Sequoia Forest Plan, he calculated that the SNF is being oveicut 239 threefold. Furthermore present logging is consistently removing the larger trees instead of the smaller ones that create the fire hazard and crowded stands that stress the forest. Adequate reforestation, as required by the National Forest Management Act, has failed to take hold in many parts of the SNF. After spending two years reviewing SNF reforestation on the ground and comparing it to other Western forests our group monitors, our foresters agree that SNF reforestation is some of the least siKxessful in the Pacnfic's forests. The Forest Service, by law, has no business removing forest stands, particularly at great expense, and failing to renew them. • Salvage logging in the SNF is being abused. Many of the salvage sales we reviewed that were supposedly under 1,000 MBF (MBF = one thousand board feet), and therefore able to qualify as non-NEPA under former President Bush's salvage exclusion, pnxiuced well over a million board feet I suggest this over-run practice was a frecjuent and deliberate e£fort to sldrt NEPA requirements. For example, the P(xd:et Sale in the Tule River District was permitted widiout complying with NEPA under the 1,000 MBF salvage sale exclusion; however, my inquiry indicates over 3,000 MBF was cut, including green pines. If our management agency in the Sequoia National Forest cannot be honest and accountable with relatively cheap salvage sales, how can we trust them to care for the invaluable giant Sequoias? As in most logging, salvage sales typically remove the market-desirable big trees that are stressed and killed due to the crowded understories of small trees that have grown up in the absence of historical fire. By failing to diin the small trees, Sequoian salvage sales are treating symptoms rather than causes of forest mortality. This self-feeding cyde is the salvage wheel of fortune for the mill, not the forest or the people. • The Public is Being Deceived My complaints against commercial logging in die SNF could go on for pages. The Public Forestry Foundation will gladly submit further reports on the condition of flie Sequoia Forest as a result of mismanagement to committee members upon request I've highlighted a few obvious abuses simply to make this point- Continuing to commercially log the Sequoia National Forest is economically fraudulent and biologically reckless. Logging in the SNF would be socially unacceptable with a majority of public forest owners if they weren't under the delusion that SNF groves are managed like Sequoia National Park groves to the north . . . with respect and dignity. 240 • The Sequoias Are For Humans, Not Cows Grazing, like "commercial" logging, is the other subsidized use of the SNF by special interests at a loss to forest and watershed health as well as to taxpayers. I am not involved in the grazing business as I am in timber and am not an expert I am, however, a conmion sense observer who has witnessed the culmination of years of stomped-out meadows and eroded streams. Bill H.R. 2153 will phase out grazing, saving the grandeur of the Sequoias for humans instead of sacrificing it to cows. • Positive Benefits For The Vast Majority I am inserting into my testimony part of a comment as to why the Tule River Conservancy supports the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act: The Conservancy is composed largely of a group of long time Sequoia Forest citizens who see past the exploitative frenzy that still plagues the big trees and into the future of the Sequoia Forest as a treasure belonging to the American people. I urge the members of this hearing to take time to read this comment if you haven't already done so. It is the local voice of informed reason: ITie Board of Directors of the Tule River Conservancy (TRC) unanimously and strongly supports the legislation [HR 2153]. The Bill specifically proposes that a large portion of Sequoia National Forest be managed to protect and restore its biological, scenic and recreational resources. After studying this bill carefully, discussing it with many coruxmed and informed local residents and visitors, and after years of intensively monitoring and studying past and present forest management practices, we are absolutely convinced that this bill, if passed, will have only positive benefits for the vast majority of the public, including all private property owners and residents in the area. A Global Preserve For The Human Spirit I want to conclude my testimonial for support of the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act by reminding all of us that we are talking about a Bill that proposes to enhance the stewardship of the largest, oldest commimity of life on this planet Maintaining the Sequoias and their surrounding habitat is, to me, as a forester, a sacred trust The Great Sequoia groves are a living Mecca for all humans who wish to rest their souls in the closest place to the Garden of Eden left on earth. In this fearful and hectic age, the value of preserving the peaceful Giant Sequoias as a global preserve for the human spirit by far exceeds the dubious "losses" to one petty arm of bureaucracy or one small timber company. 241 Testimony of Chariene B. Little Sequoia Forest Alliance (619) J76-4129 Concerning the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act H.R. 2153 Before the House Agriculture Committee Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources March 2, 1994 I am Charlene Little, of Kemville, California, a small town surrounded by the Sequoia National Forest. I am one of the founders of the Sequoia Forest Alliance, an association of citizens concerned with the health of our National Forests. I am a member of the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society and I have worked closely with these organizations in attempting to improve forest management policy For the last ten years, I have been conducting exhaustive studies of the timber management of the Sequoia Forest These studies have included careful monitoring of reforestation and the effects of logging and roading on wildlife and fishery habitat We have brought in experts to collect data and form evaluations. The results of these studies are alarming We found thousands of acres of tree plantations that are devoid of the numbers of trees purported to be there by the U S.Forest Service. Many of our streams are clogged with sediment and have lost their ability to support the spawning of trout. The Forest Service has neglected to conduct many of the studies and activities required by Federal Law to execute timber sales Our findings led to numerous timber sale appeals and eventually several lawsuits We won injunctive relief on a number of individual timber sales, but this relief is only temporary and affects but a minute portion of the forest What is needed is a permanent preserve for the lasting protection of the giant sequoias and the surrounding forest. H.R. 2153 would provide that protection. In spite of voluminous evidence demonstrating that the US Forest Service has been negligent in its management of the giant sequoia groves and the mixed conifer forest, many timber sales are still being planned in the fragile area designated for preservation in this bill An example is the "Counter and Adler Timber Sales" which are found in the Sequoia National Forest Project Planning Schedule, 1/1/94 - 3/31/94, with aprojection of fourteen million board feet The Planning Schedule identifies the issues associated with these sales as follows: "Spotted Owl Habitat Area, giant sequoias, furbearers." Let us not ignore the handwriting on the wall. My ten years of negotiations with the U.S. Forest Service have been filled with broken promises It is time to find a better way to protect this jewel of old growth forest That way is to enact the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, H.R. 2153. 242 Wartin Litton 180 Bear Gulch Drive Portola Valley, California 94028 (415) 851-2616 STATEMENT BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES March 9, 1994 I am Martin Litton, of Portola Valley, California. I am a third-generation Californian with sixty years of experience in the Sequoia and Sierra national forests and environs. My alarm over the fate of Sequoia National Forest is mostly the result of the surge of logging and logging roads in the past thirty years and the logging of groves of giant sequoias which began ten years ago. The area of the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve is in two congressional districts. Ihe smaller part is in the district represented by Mr. Lehman, and the larger part is in the district represented by Mr. Thomas. But the owners of Sequoia and Sierra national forests — all of whom share ownership equally — are the citizens of 435 congressional districts, and many of them are constituents of members of this committee. It is interesting to contemplate how they would vote on the felling and hauling away of what John Muir called "the noblest forest of the world." And make no mistake about it: That forest is going down — half of its most desirable timber gone in thirty years — and it is not coming back. Where the ground is not too steep or rocky to plant, the wishful thinking is that the seedlings of a single species — ponderosa pine, in nature a distinct minority among the diverse trees of old-growth forest at those elevations — will grow to pole size in 140 years so they can be cut and utilized by whatever civilization may be around at that time. (After all, if you go back 140 years , you ' re ahead of the Civil War . ) With that kind of a "rotation , " one must wonder what happens in the century or so of waiting for the next "crop." If I may judge by the license plates I see, your constituents have high regard for their public property in the Far West, which they visit and enjoy in great numbers. We Americans love our scenic federal lands — so much so, as you have observed, that we are loving some of them to death. Demand often crowds them beyond their capacities. Situated as they are, within a few hours' drive of the homes of some thirty million people in California alone, the national parks of the Sierra Nevada — Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia — can hardly remain what they were first meant to be: "pleasuring-grounds for the people." The public's ever-growing need for the native beauty and wonder of America the Beautiful is met by an ever-diminishing resource. In 1890, Sequoia became our second national park, created to save an example 243 of America's native glory from the fate of the greatest of all sequoia forests, in the Converse Basin nearby, which was then undergoing destruction on an almost unimaginable scale. But the original park, centered on the still-wild Garfield Grove, did not even embrace Giant Forest, site of the General Sherman Tree. The park was enlarged several times, to almost ten times its original size, then joined in 1940 by Kings Canyon National Park, a detached section of which contains sequoias. Yet even today, all of the protected sequoia acreage in those parks, as well as in Yosemite, in state and county lands, on BLW sites, in private ownership— in short, all of the protected sequoia ownership in the world — does not amount to one-third of the area occupied by unprotected sequoia groves on the Sequoia National Forest, most of which have been subjected to destructive logging in the past ten years at the. expense of the Nation's taxpayers. Not only do your constituents own the Forest, but they pay the bills. The felling, hauling, and milling jobs declining in numbers as the available timber declines, are funded out of the pockets of Americans all across the continent, who unknowingly have their heritage squandered and pay to have it done. And when they come to see their forest, they find their access to major groves denied by locked gates. The Preserve will be neither a wilderness nor a national park. Its injuries are too severe for a "quick fix." It will be the first thing of its kind in the national forest system — a recovery project designed to let natural processes do most of the work, and to provide outdoor space hospitable to people's needs in these times of ever-more-confined recreational opportunity. E\inds no longer used to subsidize timber sales will be ample to pay for forestry-skilled labor — labor needed to repair the damage and to make up for past errors: e. g. seventy years of fire suppression leading to dangerous accumulations of fuels which now must be removed, the land will be allowed — and helped — to heal. Note that the boundaries are logical, embracing land related to sequoia growth, influencing it, or influenced by it. Actually, much of the Preserve has not been tree-clad in historic time, but all of it is essential for fish and wildlife migration, shelter, and breeding; scenic quality, life- zone sequence, all-year accessibility, trail continuity, and the microclimate on which the forest depends — yes, clearly depends: Remove the natural canopy and you've sent the southern Sierra Nevada further along its way to a barren end. It is worth remembering that every argument used in opposition to H. R. 2153 could be used for dismantling the Sierra Nevada's national parks, where cutting down the trees would provide quite a few jobs — for a while. With H. R. 2153, we now have the chance to do what we should have done a century ago — put our strength into husbanding a treasure beyond price. It won't be what it was, but we mvist give it every chance. We now have an instrument by which we can bring the domain of the giant sequoia back to health. People who live in that domain or near it will find their properties more secure and valuable in an environment that is not 244 stumps, burned slash, indiscriminate road cuts, and planted monocultures. People virtio visit it will find welcome, comfort, inspiration, and— in the not-too-distant future — a good measure of the integrity of nature. It won't be quick or simple. Itie challenge is substantial. But so is the opportunity . Ihank you. (The photographs are held in the committee files.) 245 R. BURTON LITTON. Jr. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. FAS LA S^3^/f^f^ 401 VCHMONT kVt . IIMKILtV. CAUrOMHIA ((TOT ^ />*^t^ 246 4.hp4/U4^^ yCiC^y/^u,f **t'**<-^Acc4c./^ ^-^^i^ifu^^ ^u — Cnca4^ ^^'»st anyone who has seen ancient sequoias, and especially to anyone who has seen them after dieir surroundings have been mechanically reduced to stumps and sawtimber, that the 38 groves within Sequoia National Forest don't enjoy the same protections accorded giant sequoias in our national parks. The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act attempts to redress this oversight by creating the first national fcnest preserve for study and restoration of the sequoia ecosystem. The groves in Sequoia Nati(»ial Forest are in no way inferior to those in protected jurisdicticms. They are just victims of political boundaries and a governmental agency, the U.S. Fbrest Service, whose own supervisors consider it "an organization out of control." 259 The logging orchestrated by the Forest Service in Sequoia National Forest's sequoia groves during the 1980s was at best a deed of arrogant intemperance. At worst, it was an act of environmental criminality - both literally, since it violated this country's most fundamental environmental laws, and figtiratively, since it grievously offended so many sensibilities. Not everyone agrees with that view, of course, but generally those who would dispute it have a financial stake in the matter. Unfortunately, that includes the Forest Service, a bureaucracy whose economic survival has depended not on Multiple Use, which is its legal mandate, but on harvesting timber. That budgetary reality has resulted in over cutting and a reckless disregard for environmental precautions on national forests throughout the country. Sequoia National Forest, tragicaUy, is no exception. The current Administration has sought to end the "timber wars" of the last decade by app(natmg more responsible leadership in the Forest Service and by adapting "ecosystem management" which seeks to balance commercial, recreational and preservation purposes. A word of caution is necessary, however. Ecosystems are complex. They are not often well understood. They do not oftra have well defined boundaries. Moreover, as an enviroimiental attorney, I know that science is often shades of gray. Experts testified on both sides of the issue in 1992 at the congressional oversight hearings on the protecticxi of the sequoia. It was clear that many gaps existed in the data relevant to Sequoia protection. One thing, however, was evident You don't have to cut a giant sequoia to kill it 260 The Sequoia Natioaal Forest borders oo the Mojave Desert All experts agreed diat the type of dearcutting which occurred in the Sequoia during the last decade and the cutting that continues today affects the microclimate o( the fcsest The effects of the microclimatic change raises more questions than absolute answers about the continued existence of the giant sequoia. Prudence dictates that, if we are to err at all, that we do so on die side of caution and preservadon. The Sequoia are too precious to sacrifice. One has to wonder whether Sequoia National Forest is even a logical place for America to harvest wood fiber. Aside fix)m the fact that it hosts giant sequoia groves that belong in a national pari^ it features steep, rugged terrain and soils classified as "erosive" and "highly erosive." Prec^itation is low even outside of drought periods, regeneration has been historically poor, aiul timber-sale program is one of the biggest money losers - by some measures the biggest - in the national forest system. And as if that is not enough, the Forest Service's own estimate is that recreation's potential value at the forest is six times greater that the land's timber value. This a forest that is within a four-hour drive of two major population centers in a state whose population over the next 20 years is expected to junqi from 31 million to SO million. In place of a diverse forest, in die minority of areas where regeneration has succeeded, giant sequoia groves that woe logged seveiad years ago are now predominated by an even-aged monoculture - straight rows of small, evenly spaced pine trees diat the Foiest Service planted. These once magnificent groves have been relegated to tree plantatioas. "Giant sequoia Qrpically occupied the better timber grovdng sites," a SequcHa offidal lias oqilained, "and there were c^portiinities for inciea^ng timber {xodttctivity oa antiooal forest land.* 261 Dr. Jeny Franklin, the progressive Forest Service researcher out of Washington state, could have cited the sequoia groves and their surroundings when he made the following observations about ecological diversity a few years ago. In pursuit of high, short-term returns we have attempted to mimic intensive agriculture, which moves us toward a homogenized, simplified forest.. Simultaneously, we have been wondering how far the system can be pushnl and rationalizing with 'don't worry too much - we can fix it later.' But can we? Considering the uncertainties of the future and our still inadequate knowledge base, we must ask ourselves: have we been p>roceeding prudently? The answer inescapably, is no. Since it is reasonable to doubt we can fix the Sequoia later, we should make ever) effort to save what's left of it now. Sotac elements of the natural world should be saved without question sin^jly because they are so rare and ineffably wondrous. As Conservationists, we will continue to point out that management practices in the Sequoia Forest aren't quite right The rancor emanating from the giant sequoia grove logging is not merely a political brush fire that will soon bum itself out Opposition to ongoing logging in the proximity of the groves is gaining momentum as the public becomes informed, and it will last as long as the logging is a real or potential threat Environment Now's view is that unless the situation is defused with real and lasting protections, not just for the giant sequoia but for their ecosystem. Sequoia National Forest will become one of America's major environmental battlegrounds. We are committed to the fight Given a short term financial gain fw timber companies or the timber cutting in Sequoia groves, I urge this Congress to take a position, one it should have taken decades ago, preserving these magnificent trees. The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act should pass diis CoDgress before the end of this session. Everyday costs us. And we have already paid too deariy. Thank yoa very much. 262 *-'r^iV .' DOPPDof Otomtnon (Mm Tm OMIet Ttna CHMUS MAHNEB OWWFow CTMOMI MMIM. eA( Mareh l, 1994 The Honorable Charfie Rose, Chairman Speciatty Cropt and Nvtunl Resources Agflouiture Sub-Convnitte* 10S Cannon HouM Oflica BuJtcfmg Washington, DC 20S15 RE: H.R. 2163 • IMPACTS TO TULARg COUmY, CA. Omt Chalmwn Rom: PtaaM IncHJde my comments m the racorO for KR. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Praaarvatlon Act As iha Chalmwn for the Tulare County Board of Superwisofa I want to register ourgeoosMon to this bfl. H.R. 21S3 would Impact Tulare County In the foBowlng manner 1. The natural mouroes of the Sequoia Nabenal Fereat, togattiar with the varloua racraational oppoitunMaa, provides aasenttal economic support and muctwieeded revenue tor Tuiara County government artd its communitfaa. Z Closure or tome 440,000 acres of Sequoia National Foraat would have a serious affect on coiiwuertial logging in TUara County. This Industry ia already feeing ttie Impacts of reduced dmtjar harvesting, m 1\ilare County, thaee induaMas provide 25% or approxknately Si maSon armuaNy in groaa receipts from timber sales to local government. Theae revenues help fund County ectwola. roeda, law artiorcemeot. and provide basic servicea to citizens. 3. The processing mills located in Tulare County provide hundreds of Joos to oir cttnns and support for ttwir famllaa. l4umerout businesses wtio sub-contract with these mOa and provide addlitonai jobs woutd also be Impacted. In a county which has unempioynwit rates as high as 1S percent, witti one out of every three citizens receiving government assistance, the loss of these jobs could be devastating. 4. Recreation and tourism would also be impacted by Nmidng access and multipie use. of ttie Forest In dosmg, carefuOy thought out axisttng Forest Service poOcy, Preaidantlel Proclamation, and the Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan cunantly address the economic and environmental needs of tfUs forest we value so highly. Additional legistation, we feel, ts redundant and unnecessary. Respectfully Sufomittad by: tOamaa E. Maplaa, Cttatrman T(4are County Board of Supervisors JEMXRDtDim 263 STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBINSON (41 5) 435-0582 Supporting The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2153) on behalf of Sequoia Alliance- January 1 9, 1 994 1. I am a professional forester, having received my education at the University of California in Berkeley and the degree of Bachelor of Science in forestry from that institution in 1937. I reside at 16 Apollo Road, Tiburon, California. From 1939 until 1966 I was the principal forester for Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 1 Market Street, San Francisco. I established and managed that company's sustained yield timber management plan on 730,000 acres of forest in Northern California. These lands are being managed for income under some of the most advanced forest practices in the industry and are utilizing the best available information concerning sustained timber yield and environmental impacts. From 1966 to the present I have been a private forestry consultant and my principal client has been the Sierra Club, with whom I served as Staff Forester until 1 979. I am now semi-retired. 2. I have been asked to present my perspectives on the damage to the Sequoia and Sierra National Forest ecosystems from timber cutting. I have long known the Sequoia National Forest. My first experience there was in 1 935, cruising timber. We cruised the Freeman Grove in preparation for acquisition by the United States through exchange with the Dwyer-Rucker estate; the transaction which resulted in establishment of the Johnsondale mill. I inspected portions of the Sequoia in June 1 988 in order to provide comments on what was then the draft land management plan. Since then I have reviewed a recent court decision enjoining four timber sales because of the potential for impact from the proposed clearcutting and other harvesting methods. (TULARE COUNTY AUDOBON SOCIETY, et al, Plaintiffs, 264 STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBINSON (41 5) 435-0582 Supporting The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2153) on behalf of Sequoia Alliance- January 1 9, 1 994 V. MIKE ESPY, et al., Defendants [CV-F-93-5373 OWW].) My observations are as follows: A. Old partial logging was excellent. In those areas, the trees vary in size, age, and species, and are obviously putting on growth to match the capacity of the land. The growth is largely in high quality wood. The soli is not eroding and is covered with a good layer of water retaining duff, thus compensating for the relatively dry conditions of the Sequoia National Forest. B. Except along the road to Big Meadow, clearcuts extended to the very edge of meadows, leaving no cover for deer, often needed during the presence of deep snow, and particularly when giving birth. This practice also destroys some of the scenic value of the meadow. It greatly diminishes the "recreation opportunity" as defined in the Plan. C I saw no snags or large high risk trees left in the clearcuts as habitat for hole nesting species which are the most important protectors of the forest from bark beetles. Q I saw clearcuts extending all the way to the edge of the roads everywhere except along the road to Big Meadow, and in a few situations where they had very sparingly responded to protests. Some of the clearcuts, either existing or prepared for sale, destroyed or threatened spectacular areas of natural beauty, such as dramatic rock outcrops, or streamside groves. Surely our public servants should have sufficient sensitivity to leave an acre or two around such sites. L A popular campground has been obliterated, the tables and other facilities removed and the area clearcut F. Timber has been clearcut all the way to the edge of small streams in what either is or should be designated a Streamside Management Zone (SMZ). In a few cases where there 265 STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBINSON (41 5) 435-0582 Supporting The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2153) on behalf of Sequoia Alliance- January 19, 1994 was a minor response to protest, a few trees were spared. Obviously SMZ is a farce. It is not enough merely to keep bulldozers from wallowing in streambeds. According to the glossary in the Draft 1988 Plan SMZ is "An area of land extending beyond the riparian area commonly managed with caution as a buffer to protect riparian areas and water quality". Where timber is totally or mostly removed from these areas, as I witnessed, the water is warmed and sedimentation is increased thus damaging both water quality and fish habitat. Cover for wildlife is lost. Habitat for hole nesting species is destroyed. Preservation of the gene pool and of visual quality are ignored and those values lost. G. Planting appears to be almost exclusively of Pine, whether the site was formerly stocked with pure fir, mixed conifer or predominantly pine. At any rate, the surviving seedlings are nearly all pine, even where an attempt is made to plant a mixture of pine and fir. K Commonly regeneration is successful near the edges of clearcuts, but sparse in the center. This indicates that the clearcuts are too large. I. The campground and the trail beside Taylor creek leading to Dome Wilderness has been logged, and all the commercial sized trees have been cut. This has greatly diminished the quality of the trail, caused horrendous erosion of Taylor Creek, and ruined the campground. It is a terrible mistake to remove the trees along the trail, which used to cast their shade on hikers and provide natural beauty for those enjoying the forest. This is difficult to understand in view of the previous disaster at Last Chance Meadow. There a similar huge washout was caused by clearcutting to the edge of the creek some time ago. While an excellent restoration was accomplished there, it was obviously a very expensive 266 STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBINSON (41 5) 435-0582 Supporting The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2153) on behalf of Sequoia Alliance- January 1 9, 1 994 undertaking. I can't help wondering why they haven't learned from the experience. J. Previous logging in Redwood Meadow is the most atrocious I have ever encountered on public land. It resembles the logging on private land in the coast redwoods which led to clamor for the Redwood National Park, and later to the California State Forest Practices Act being declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court. The earth was torn up by bulldozers; stumps rooted out and shoved off to the side; great piles of loose sandy soil were left causing drainage and erosion problems. Then, pine was planted in straight rows under the remaining Bigtrees, obvious type conversion, and unsightly even should the planting be successful. K. I observed that fallen Bigtrees were being cut up and removed. This is disturbing because local people complained about this a number of years ago when I was staff forester for the Sierra Club. At that time, I carried the complaint to Bob Howden who was then a senior officer in Timber Management in the Regional office. He assured me that they were adopting a policy of leaving the fallen Bigtrees lie, and later sent me a copy of the policy issued by the Supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest to that effect. L Throughout the Sequoia National Forest I saw coarse unstable decomposed granite soil. Frequently logging was on very steep slopes, up to 100% in many cases, with logging continuing down to the very center of streams below. I saw much evidence of gully erosion caused by poor road construction, and sheet erosion from clearcuts. M. In every timber sale area they have cut down most, if not all of the oaks. Oak is the mother of the pine, and is an important factor in the forest ecosystem. Oak leaves mulch rapidly and hasten the decomposition of pine needles, thus 4 267 STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBINSON (41 5) 435-0582 Supporting The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2153) on behalf of Sequoia Alliance- January 19, 1994 returning nutrients to the soil and stimulating growth of young pine. It also provides mast for deer and various other creatures. While oak stumps generally sprout, young trees do not shed a significant quantity of leaves for many years, and do not produce acorns until they are at least fifteen years old. 3. I believe that the timbered portions of Sequoia National Forest have been managed as tree farms for the timber industry with scarcely any regard for other multiple use values. I also believe that they must be having difficulty finding sufficient timber to meet their sales quota, and this causes me to be suspicious of their forest inventory and sustained yield calculations. The historical pattern of clearcutting impairs the productivity of the land in many ways. See attached Forestry Note# 10 of June 1977. 4. Based upon what I have seen and reviewed, I conclude that the Sequoia National Forest has not been managed according to best management practices. Best management practices require * practicing sustained yield by limiting the removal of timber from each administrative unit to that quantity which can be removed annually in perpetuity and in which the quantity may increase and quality improve, but neither will ever decline. *long rotations, to permit dominant trees to achieve physiological maturity before being cut. ♦limit the clearings created by logging to no larger than necessary to meet the biological requirements of the trees species involved, *use natural regeneration. ♦maintain the habitat for all the native species of plants and animals that naturally occur in the area. *take extreme precaution to protect the soil. 268 STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBINSON (41 5) 435-0582 Supporting The Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2153) on behalf of Sequoia Alliance- January 19, 1994 ^__ 5. H. R. 21 53 intends to create a preserve for the Giant Sequoia groves in and around the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. I applaud such an effort, as it will enhance the restoration and future protection of an ecosystem that has been severely damaged by past logging practices. With the passage of this bill, the limited redwood forest ecosystem will be protected. J<^^- {C^-u.. fdon Robinson, Forestry consultant "iburon, California January 19, 1994 269 •OOETY ptan stwO ba wittan wtth a goat or alminating Sra coRral aoMiaa wttHn ttw Pntmrm, accapt aa naeasaiy to pratact Ba and piapany. ALTERNATIVE COUBSES OF ACTTON ♦ FoOow ttw appwi>ad Saquoia NrtonalFocaat Land and ReaoureaManagamant Plan (FawgP^gdgad Marc^ 1 98a and ttw Saquoia Nafanal Rawt Madlatad Satitamart Agraanwrt datad July, laoa wfwn was aignad by 19 panlaa. • Support ttw Piaallnntfjl Piodimaton iMuad by Qaorga Bustt an July 17, 1992. to nanag** P*"**^.*"** iQidgrowttiGlar«Saquaiagrowaaforttwbanaftandan|oyftwntarpraaartandft«aai "— 270 These attematlves allow piotactlon tiUx tfiie beat itomatoiTrem ttw adantflfc commundy and ttie public TTiey penntt strategies tsased on developing mianaic Irtonnaflon for Giant Sequoias and an ecosystem approacfL Options are available for long tenn can to ensure rastoraikyu piixectiaa and preseivatk» er^oytnent of present and future generations. T ^£~ -r<^ =-n . .->ir-a:x.J> BCPIRATTON DATE TTvee years. RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION ^~- ^ : i^i« .- ~. . ,r. SAP supports the existing nianagamantpofctes. and dfcactfcyis as the most appropriate fi^ forest IwuiUi, vMthout etiiiuiuting natural processes. "^ -^'i, - - < > orr- -t:-.3fr.- 'D-;---f ;-q 3- -cvT'i'. *:-/ (Attachment follows:) ■-:' -j.-.;*^-/ .:.s ..-L-pe2 5:-; ■-*■-. -^r* w- ■-.' •* -: 2»'' 271 WHAT IS THE GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT HJL2153 AN ANALYSIS Jim Cratas and Steva Worthley July 23, 1993 272 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of Impacts of HR 2153 ii 1-3 HR 2153 - A Brief Summary Giamt Sequoia Regeneration 4 - 5 Violation of Mediated Settlement Agreement 6-7 Fire Management 7.9 Timber 9-11 Recreation 11-13 Grazing 13-14 Water Production Costs Private Rights amd Values 17-18 Hunting emd Fishing 18 Sequoia Mediated Land Management 19-20 Plam Settlement Agreement 14 - 15 15 - 17 273 Overview of Impacts Created by: The Gumt Sequoia National Forest Preserve - H.R. 2153 1. This Ittgislation Is totally unn«c«ssary b«caus« tii« Giant S«quoias are now protactad by Prasidantial proclamation. 2 . Many varietias of existing recreation activity would be restricted or eliminated. 3. Management of 28,000 acres of private and state Ismd within the boundaries of HR 2153 would be greatly restricted. Special use permits would be restricted. Forest health would be reduced. Fuel loading would increase and permit laurger wildfires. 4 . Hunting and fishing use as practiced today would be drastically reduced. 5. Over 1 million dollars annual revenue would be lost to Tulare, Kern and County of Fresno. Over 3 million dollars annually would be needed to administer the direction given in the Act. Over 3 million dolleurs would be spent as a one time cost to implement HR 2153. :- 6. There are leurge personal liumem costs through lost federal emd ^ private employment, lost small business income, and restricted ?■ use of private lands. 7. Giant Sequoia reproduction would be threatened because the r- Forest Service could not use mechanical equipment to manage Giamt Sequoia groves. 8 . Use of prescribed fire to mzmipulate vegetation would not be effective and would be cost prohibitive. 9. Timber mjmagement on the Sequoia National Forest would be reduced to a level that 2 satmills would be eliminated, thus adding to the present 16% Tulare County unemployment level. 10. All grazing would be eliminated in 10 years. This action would force some private land owners adjacent to the Sequoia National Forest to subdivide their remches eliminating important open space adjacent to the National Forest. 11. The Sequoia National Forest Mediated Settlement signed in 1990 by 19 groups would be voided. ii 274 July 8, 19_p3 What: Is the GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT (GSPA) The GSPA (H.R. 2153), introduced May 19, 1993, by Southern California Congressmsm George Bro%m (D-Colton) , is federal legislation that would and affect a variety of current and future forest uses. WHAT H.R. 21S3 WOPI.D DO - Estaiblish a new type of land designation, a National Forest "Preserve," covering 442,425 acres in the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, defined as follows: According to H.R. 2153, a National Forest Preserve is National Forest or other public land that is dedicated in perpetuity for scientific study, recreational activity, euid/or environmental protection, where no commercial or private development may occur, and where restoration to a natural state is the goal. - Stop existing and future commercial timber hsurvest within the Preserve euid authorize the federal buyout of any signed timber contracts for the Preserval at a cost of millions of dollars. - Stop commercial or private development within the Preserve. 275 Prohibit patenting of any existing mining claims within t^e Preserve and prohibit the filing of new mining claims or geotharmal leasing within the Preserve Create a federal reservation of water rights for the entire Preserve 2urea Phase out cattle grazing in 10 years; authorize the federal buyout of any existing grazing permits within the Preserve or the use of other National Forest lamd as exchemge for the existing leased lands Prohibit motorized vehicle use on existing trails Establish a 9 member "Giant Sequoia Scientific Advisory Board" to assist with plauining and mzmagement of the Preserve. Require the development of a new management plan for the Preserve with emphasis on specific action items to preserve or restore the ecological, botanical, zoological, biological, scientific, aquatic, atmospheric, scenic, and recreational resources - Require the Management Plem to Include a review and evaluation of all roads emd trails to regulate smd control times zmd means of access and use of the Preserve Direct administration of the Preserve to address the provision of recreational and interpretive sites, regeneration efforts, scientific reseeurch, fire memagement, and the allowemce of hxinting and fishing. Timber cutting is permitted for fire fighting emd fuel reduction or reseeurch purposes, but only beyond 500 yards of Sequoia groves, and only with draft emimals. 276 - Require the federal govenment to meJce annual payments ^o local governments in the eunount equal to the real property tax which would have been paid if those lemds were private timber leuids ; set up 2Ln 2u:bitration process to resolve disputes about the tax equivalency amount - Require local government to spend at least half of that federal payment on public education - Estedslish a "Community Assistance Task Force" to oversee assistemce to local communities, with em emphasis on developing employment opportunities in forest ecosystem restoration, recreation, emd other forms of employment compatible with the purposes of the Preserve. The Task Force will cease to exist five years after esteiblishment of the Preserve. - Authorize the Task Force to provide retraining progreuns for displaced workers, technical assistance community loans and gremts, job counseling emd placement services, emd allow for the establishment of local task forces - Require the Secreteuries of Agriculture and Interior emd the Administrator of the EPA to make annual recommendations for additional National Forest Preserves. (The complete report Is held In the committee files.) (Additional attachments are held in the committee files.) 277 snfpresl Gay Ver Steeg Rt . 4, Box 205-B PorterviHe, California 93257 805-548-6482 Date: March l, 1994 Re : Support for the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act My parents have had a ranch at California Hot Springs near the Sequoia National Forest for over 3 0 years. I have lived on this ranch for the past IS years. During this time we have considered having the Sequoia National Forest (SNF) as a backdrop to our property an unquestioned asset. We use the SNF for both winter and summer recreation, we camp, hike, ride horses, auid cross-country ski in Giant Sequoia groves and other areas of interest within the SNF. We were led to believe that the SNF staff protected these public lands for the future of all Americans through careful management. Long ago (20 years or more) , logging and roadbuilding were not changing the landscape as rapidly as today. In the past decade or so, logging has been done on a much larger scale. The SNF receives a great deal of its funding based on timber sales. Accordingly, forest service employees, wishing to continue their employment and funding, knowingly or unJcnowingly encourage a pro-logging stance over other considerations. The pressure to cut timber has taken precedence over the careful management of the Giant Sequoia trees, watersheds, soils, plant and animal communities, and recreation. In fact, recreation has been discouraged by locked gates on many roads, campground closures, and trail neglect. It is now much harder to enjoy the forest for recreation. Stronger protection is needed for the SNF because of its unique blend of Giant Sequoias and fragile, dry landscape. Continued extraction of timber will lead to harmful effects, possibly to the Giant Sequoias themselves. The SNF is too precious to tinker with. My suggestions for protecting the SNF are as follow*: 1 . Permanently protect the Giant Sequoias and the surrounding forest community . 2 . Do not cut trees for timber because there are problems with regrowth, loss of trees due to disease, and negative effects on soils and water. When necessary, trees can be selectively cut on « tree by tree basis. 3. Do not build new roads because they are not needed. Open as many existing roads as possible by unlocking gates. This will replace the current system of locked gates on many roads which are now accessible only to loggers, ranchers, and SNF staff who have Iteys . • 4. Epcouraoe the recreational aspects of the forest . Other national forests have excellent systems of trails, campgrounds and snow parks. This will provide many jobs for the co««nunity and the forest service. 278 Cont : Gay Ver Steeg, Support for Giant Sequoia Preservation Act p. 2 5. Invest in maintaining the health of the forest . The money spent in below- cost timber sales should be spent to care for the hundreds of acres of clear-cuts and tree plantations which are struggling to grow back. This will provide jobs in the community and in the forest service for years to come, offsetting the loss of timber-related jobs. 6 . Encourage the community and Tulare County officials to emphasize recreation. The ever-growing recreation economy will replace the timber economy. The monies derived from timber sales will end, but other monies can and will replace the loss. The monies from timber sales will be ending anyway due to the over-cutting of the timber in the forest. Our community, the county, and the nation will benefit in the long run through protection provided by the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act. We must act now to protect these public lands from the overwhelming pressure of logging interests . Respectfully, Gay Ver Steeg 279 TULE RIVER CONSERVnNCY 209 342 2 196 TULB RIVKR CONSRRVANCT Sequoia Nat ' 1 . ForasC P. 0. BOX 723 PORTBRVILLB, CA 93258 2/28/94 Tulo Rircr Conscr»«ncy (TRC) is ■ grassrooc, non-profit corpor»lj«n comprised of 200'*' members and five Board members. TRC members are residents and/or property owners in the Sequoia National Forest (SNF). These same members have joined TRC because they are angered at the abusive timber practices in SNF. They are dismayed by the clearcuts, the plantation failures, the poor reforestation attempts, the cumulative watershed damage, lack, of legislative protection of the magnificent Giant Sequoia groves and their ecosystems, and the general unhealthy condition of the forest. Due to the unhealthy nature of SNF, TRC created workshops Co train citizens to become stewards of the forest. TRC was aided by professional foresters from the Public Forestry Foundation, whose leader is Roy Keene . Over 250 people have been trained in our workshops. Training consisted of educating citizens about the health of the forest, identifying flora and fauna, learning to monitor the health of pine plantations, and identifying successful and unsuccessful reforestation areas- Through the efforts of our monitors, scientific experts, and registered professional foresters who have studied SNF (such as Or. Kathias Kondoff, Dr. Robert Hrubes, Roy Keene, James Depree.). it has been concluded that the overall reforestation attempts have failed on the forest. BMP occupies the southern end of Che Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. The entire Sierra is a unique and fragile ecosystem, but the southern tip, which tapers off into the Mohave Desert, is particularly sensitive due to 280 TULE RIVER CONSERVftHCY 209 542 2196 its low rainfall and shallow, erosive soils. 5NP has been logged tnurh faster than it can poGsibly sustain. On'oitc reforestation studies reveal units tliat have been replanted repeatedly to no avail and others not replanted at all. While SNP has been logged using clcarcut methods since 196&, Che U.S. Forest Service's Land Management Plan has a glaring lack of information about the performance of plantations, about sites that might be unsuit.od to clearcutting or logging, about the growth rate of the plantations that appeared to be successful, and growth and yield information specific to SNP. If trees are not growing back as predicted, then all other predictions of impacts due to logging (such as forest habitat types, impacts to wildlife, lical rates of visual and recreation impacts, watershetl imparts, soil loss, and long-term job security) are not valid. Tf many plantations must be continuously replanted with seedlings in order to appear (on paper) to be reforested, Chen the lega] mandate to log only as much as can be regrown and sustained over time is being violated . In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service (USPS) published a Reforestation Report that was reijuired by the Mediated Settlement Agreement. This report was to provide basic valid information about the reforestation program and about suitability of sites. It was found this document uses unscientific nethods to look only for information that would support the conclusions that the USPS wanted to reach, i.e., that plantation performance is successful and that there is no difference in ability to stock the widely varying sites of SNP. Professional foresters were hired to review this document (members of th« Public Forestry Foundation and James DePree) and have written critiques of this report. Both of chose reviews came to the same conclusion: the USPS still haa not met its obligation to provide sound scientific information I 281 TULE RIVER CONSeRVAHCV 209 S«2 2 19* •bout Cho condition, itucccs*. or suitability of its harvest plantations. Thoy found (1) inciec iphcrabi 1 i ty of the data, (2) intentionally aiisleading infomution, and (3) incompleteness of the discussion. Other points: 1) 60.000 acres of SNF have been deforested. 2) Of those 60,000 acres, 20,000 acres have never h«en replanted. 3) or Cho rcsiainine ^0,000, only 4SX are successful. *) The USPS claims a success rate of 93Z through false and misleading reports . 5) PlantaLionK over 17 years of age have been devastated by pine beetle i nfeaiations . 6) USl'S ncthods arc totally ioadctiuate to maintain the semblance of a forest for the future. In coik: lus ion , the membership of TRC would like Co see the Giant Sequoia Crovcii and their ecosystens afforded legislative protection. We Mould like to Sftr a decmphasis of tirabcr extraction and an orapliasis placed ou recreation and overall health of the forest. RospecLfully submitted. ^j^cW U^^dr Linda Utt President TRC 282 Date: January 12, 1994 The Honorable Charlie Rose Subconunlttee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources 105 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 RE: Giant Sequoia Preservation Act (HR-21S3) Dear Chairman Rose; Ne urge you to support the passage of the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, HH-2153. We believe this measure offers a reasonable and practical means of managing the land within the proposed preserve for the benefit of the American public. We have lived on private property within the boundaries within Sequoia National Forest for 13 years, and our home and property is immediately adjacent to what will hopefully become one of the boundaries of the preserve. We have closely followed management activities in the Forest over the years and we are intimately familiar with the many laws and implementing regulations governing management of the National Forests. We ore absolutely convinced that existing laws regulating Sequoia National Forest have been implemented in o way contrary to the best interest of the American people. For whatever reasons, timber production has obviously been the driving force guiding almost all Forest Service activities over the years. Everything from fire prevention to fire "simulation", from wildlife habitat "improvement" to streamside "restoration" has been used as a pretext for industrial-scale logging operations. We believe strongly that if the Forest Service is allowed to continue with a program of commercial timber "sales" this lopsided emphasis on logging will continue. We also would liKe to bring to your attention some of the inaccurate statements some opponents of this bill have made both to the public and to Congress . The claim has been repeatedly mode that the bill will cause a "dangerous" fire hazard. For example, an "analysis" co-authored by Jim Crates, the Forest Supervisor when the logging in Sequoia Groves took place, states that the bill only allows limited burning to achieve native densities of vegetation and therefore does not allow for sufficient fire control. In fact, the bill specifically requires the development of a fire management plan with the "goal" of eliminating fire control some time in the future. In fact, not only is controlled burning specifically allowed, no limitations are given except that no new "roads" are to be built and mechanicol equipment cannot be used for fuel reduction where it would "cause damage to Preserve soils, plant root systems, or wildlife habitat." As the bill is presently written, logging for the purpose of fuel reduction is allowed within the preserve with the limitations listed above, except in Sequoia Groves. We believe a science-based fire management plan as mandated by this bill is critically important for the long-term survival of this forest. 283 Thar* is naarly uniwarsal racognition of a high liKalihood of disastarous firas in soaa parts of Sequoia National Forest today, particularly in the ■iiiad conifer zone. One cause of this situation is the build up of high levels of dense vegetation and dead fuels as a result of ovar-zealous fire suppression in the past. Ne have also seen isany logged over areas near our hoBe with a dense growth of brush in between densly planted pine trees, both alive and dead, an obvious and real fire hazard. Me have alao seen partially logged areas that have grown bacK in heavy brush, leaving a fire hazard greater than before the logging. Oaapite this situation there is presently no forest-wide foratal fire management plan in existance on Sequoia National Forest. We are simply told that if there is no industrial scale logging commercial on the forest there will be terrible fires . The implementation of this bill, we believe, will help alleviate the existing fire danger, benefiting the forest ecosystem as well as protecting private property. A wisely planned fire management plan can go a long way toward restoring the forest from decades of neglect and missMnagement . There has been considerable misraprasantation of what this bill proposes other than fire managasMnt. Ma believe much of the local opposition has come from alarmist reaction to these ■israpraeentat ions . In this regard we have the following comments: Nothing whatsoever in this bill would have the effect of changing the content of contracts between present recreation cabin leases or private group camps. The only activities prohibited by this bill are new road building, commercial tiartiar harvest, off road vehicle travel and eventually cattle grazing. The bill will have no effect whatsoever on the use of private property in the preserve. The bill changes land use only within the preserve itself. Employment in the local timber industry is a tiny part of total local amploysrant, and any loss of employment will be made up in part or entirely by employment in restoration of the forest and improvement in the quality of the recreation experience, attracting more visitors to the area. Statements to the effect that this bill will cause major economic 'devastation' is meaningless rhetoric. The aradiated settlement agraearant is a temporary, secretly negotiated 'deal' that allows the timber dominated management on the Sequoia to continue for at least the next 10 years. ■e can only hope that you and other members of the BubcosMeit tee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources will take the time and effort to carefully read and analyze HR-21S3, along with all of the arguements for and against it. If you do so we ara confident that it will become law of the land. Sincerely, Sxncerely , Ray /West Marilyn West HCR-2, Box 4B3 Epringville, Ca 93265 CC : MeartierE of subcoaaiittee 284 March 15, 1993 TESTIMONY ON H.R. 2153 'THE GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT' By Dwight Willard Aside from my professional background as an attorney, I am an amateur naturalist and conservationist who has developed expertise on the giant sequoia groves, as well as a high degree of knowledge about Sequoia National Forest, the Sierra Nevada, and conifer forests in general. I have written two as yet unpublished books on giant sequoias. I actively protested Sequoia National Forest grove logging practices and plans in 1985-86. I got politically involved again as a volunteer in 1989-1990, when I helped draft and negotiate part of the'Sequoia National Forest Plan "Mediated Settlement Agreement" provisions concerning giant sequoias. But my major sequoia activity has been studying and writing about them rather than effective activism. I have a few observations relevant to the debate on the proposed Giant Sequoia Preserve. 1. The giant sequoia groves themselves and appropriate buffer areas of varying sizes depending on circumstances, unquestionably deserve "preserve"- type protection. Legislation may not be essential for that purpose, but it is appropriate. Giant sequoia preserve areas can be feasibly mapped and legislatively protected. The preserve type legislative protection could take various forms, including discrete preserve units, like Muir Woods National Monument or the original General Grant National Park of 1890, larger preserves incorporating more than one grove, or additions to the National Park and/or National Wilderness Preservation System in some cases. I could make a case for addition of an eastern pairt of the Hume Ranger District to Kings Canyon National Park, as was proposed and passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1919. I am in favor of a preserve approach to grove protection. 2. The present Sequoia National Forest Management Plan, as amended in 1990, does provide interim "preserve" protection for the groves from new logging and road impacts, with the notable exception of Converse Basin Grove. Converse Basin Grove should receive the degree of interim protection accorded other groves under the current Forest Plan. Larger buffer areas of protection than are provided under the plan are appropriate for several groves. The present administrative protections of Sequoia National Forest Groves should be seen as interim protection that should be improved upon in the short-term (particularly regarding protection of Converse Basin Grove) and for the long-term in several respects. 285 3. 1 favor more protective management of Sequoia National Forest land proposed for Preserve status, but 1 believe that more logging is appropriate than is allowed by the Preserve legislation, as explained below. A. The proposed bill primarily concerns the non-sequoia forest land within the proposed preserve boundaries. The issues concerning management and protection of that land are largely the same in all of the Sierra Nevada National Forests, from Plumas National Forest in the north to Sequoia National Forest in the south. All of the Sierra Nevada National Forests need a more resource protective management approach. As part of this planning, it must be recognized that Sequoia National Forest cannot produce the type of sustained timber yields that the northern Sierra Nevada forests can produce. Sequoia National Forest has less suitable, productive timberland, and preservation values dominate in timbedand like sequoia groves and prime viewsheds. B. In addition, it must be recognized that much of the area proposed for preserve status has already been overlogged. Aerial photographs illustrate this well at a glance. In the 1980's, Sequoia National Forest sought to maximize timber harvest, which was inappropriate for the Forest's circumstances. In general, timber harvest in Sequoia National Forest should be a relatively smaller percentage of the multiple use emphasis than in forests like Plumas and Stanislaus with much more suitable, highly productive commercial timberland. There is no question that Sequoia National Forest timber harvests should be reduced from high levels in the past. "Industrial forestry" approaches to maximizing timber yields are very inappropriate for Sequoia National Forest, except for possible exceptional salvage circumstances after major forest mortality from fire or insects. C. Any Sequoia National Forest timber management needs to accord with ecosystem preservation. Any logging will need to focus more on thinning of merchantable younger trees, salvage, and small group selection, rather than on stand-wide harvests of the relatively little remaining old growth. D. In my opinion, some degree of logging is an appropriate use of much of the land within the proposed Preserve. I believe that the proposed legislation excessively restricts logging. The mixed conifer forest zone includes a lot of very virile forest that tends to become overdense in the absence of the historic fire regime of frequent, low-intensity fires. To me, periodic commercial thiiming and small group cutting in some of these stands seems acceptable, and often desirable. That also goes for much of the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer zone. In my observation, aside from steep slopes, streamside zones, and some other vulnerable areas, much of the mixed conifer forest zone can tolerate significant logging without damage to the ecosystem. (Logging in the red fir zone is much more problematic.) I cannot supp)ort the Preserve prop>osal 80-635 0-94-10 286 to the extent that it designs a blanket elimination of worthwhile, politically, and economically acceptable timber harvest which is not destructive of the forest ecosystem. E. Timber harvest for commercial purposes should be baimed, of course, in the sequoia groves and appropriate grove buffer areas. However, I particularly oppose the proposed legislative ban on einy timber cutting within 500 yards of sequoia groves. Many circumstances exist where cutting is appropriate for ecosystem enhancement and protection (from extreme and uimatural fire hazards) within that zone. As observed in the recently released Clinton Administration final plan concerning the habitat of the northern spotted owl, thiiming of trees under 80 years old in once-logged stands can accelerate the stand's recovery of old growth forest character. I believe thinning to accelerate old growth recovery is appropriate in some Sequoia National Forest stands now proposed for virtual elimination of logging. F. The Forest Service and the timber industry definitely need to harmonize and adjust to the limits of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem and the public passion to protect the Sierra. Cuts must come way down from historic levels. Implementing selective logging practices in an economically feasible and non-destructive way on a long-term basis is challenging. It requires more sophisticated forestry than the a, b, c approach of industrial forestry. Where the Forest Service can't conduct sustainable forestry in both the environmental and political senses, logging should be effectively banned. But I expect that a certain level of sustained timber yield well in excess of the Preserve conception is acceptable, appropriate, and economically feasible. G. To a great extent, I expect that the improved regionwide planning and rethinking of sustained yield logging in the Sierra Nevada will resolve some of the management planning challenges at the Sequoia National Forest level. 4. The Forest Service should be judged, pro or con, on the basis of deeds and realistic plans for action, and not merely on testimony about management intentions. 5. Some legislative redrafting is necessary from any perspective. Sec. 5 (c) mandates the impKJSsibUity that the Preserve shall provide "optimum habitat for all naturally occurring species." Deer and spotted owl, for example, have very inconsistent optimum habitats. On its face, the Preserve proposal is contrary to provision of optimum deer habitat. Some redrafting for consistency is necessary. 6. 1 am skeptical of the potential efficacy of the proposed "Scientific Advisory Board" mechanism as it is now prop>osed. 287 103d congress 1st Session H.R.2153 To designate the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve in the State of California, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 19, 1993 Mr. Brown of California (for himself, Mr. Beilenson, Mr. Hixchey, Mr. Waxmax, Mr. Dellums, Ms. Schentc, Mr. Edwards of California, Mr. Berman, Mr. Stark, and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture A BILL To designate the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve in the State of CaUfomia, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "Giant Sequoia Preser- 5 vationActof 1993". 6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 7 The Congress finds and declares the following: 8 (1) The Giant Sequoia trees (Sequoiadendron 9 giganteum), the largest of all trees and the most 288 2 1 mjgestic of all living things, are native to only a 2 small part of the Sierra Nevada range in California. 3 The Giant Sequoia groves and other ancient forests 4 located within Sequoia National Forest are a unique 5 national treasure that should be passed on intact for 6 the benefit and eiyoyment of future generations. 7 (2) The Giant Sequoias are named for the 8 Cherokee Indian Sequoya, a giant among his people 9 as the creator of the Cherokee alphabet. 10 (3) The Giant Sequoias are plant relatives of 1 1 the Coastal Redwoods of California, the Dawn Red- 12 woods of China, and the Bald Cypress of the Amer- 13 ican South. 14 (4) Most of all the Giant Sequoia trees in the 15 entire world are within the boundaries of the Se- 16 quoia National Forest; these trees and their environs 17 are currently unprotected statutorily fix)m logging, 18 development, and other impacts resulting from 19 human activity. 20 (5) The ancient forests located in the Sequoia 21 and Sierra National Forests provide unique and un- 22 paralleled opportunities for scientific study and re- 23 search. 24 (6) The ancient forests of the Sequoia and Si- 25 erra National Forests are the homes of endemic, •HR S15S IH 289 3 1 rare, threatened, and endangered species of plants 2 and wildlife; further destruction and diminution of 3 the forest can only accelerate the extirpation or ex- 4 tinction of said species. 5 (7) The ancient forests of the Sequoia and Si- 6 erra National Forests can and do provide outstand- 7 ing and unique recreational opportunities for our 8 Nation's people. 9 (8) The ancient forests of the Sequoia and Si- 10 erra National Forests retain and release water, thus 11 guaranteeing a steady and assured supply of clean, 12 high-quality water for agricultural, industrial, mu- 13 nicipal, animal, environmental, and recreational pur- 14 poses. 15 (9) The most valuable aspect of the Sequoia 16 and Sierra National Forests is their intact, natural 17 ecosystems, which have developed over tens of thou- 18 sands of years; such ecosystems are not renewable 19 for many centuries after lo^ng, if at all. 20 (10) The policy of the United States Forest 21 Service has been to encoureige lo^ng of ancient for- 22 est habitats, including that of the Giant Sequoias. 23 (11) At the current rate of logging in the Se- 24 quoia National Forest, it is estimated that all of the >HR S15S IH 290 ■ 4 1 ecologically significant unprotected forests will be de- 2 stroyed within 7 to 8 years. 3 (12) Removal of timber from the Sequoia Na- 4 tional Forest is done at a net loss to the United 5 States Treasury of more than $8,000,000 annually, 6 over and above the amounts appropriated annually 7 by the Congress for the administration and oper- 8 ation of the Forest. 9 (13) Direct and indirect employment afforded 10 as part of the logging in the Sequoia and Sierra Na- 1 1 tional Forests will decline with reduction of the vol- 12 ume of native forest and with compliance with envi- 13 ronmental laws. Workers paid by private interests 14 for felling, hauling, and milling trees withm the 15 boundaries of the Preserve estabUshed by this Act 16 are subsidized by United States taxpayers. 17 (14) At current and prospective rates of logging 18 under the United States Forest Service's present 19 "Sequoia National Forest Plan", the forest is being 20 removed at more than double the sustainable rate. 21 (15) United States Forest Service figures show 22 the recreational value of the Sequoia National For- 23 est to be more than 6 times that of timber extrac- 24 tion, yet recreational values, and the opportunities 25 for gainful employment associated therewith, are se- •HR tl5S IB 291 5 1 riously and permanently eroded under past and 2 present management of the Forest. 3 (16) Private-property values within and around 4 the area affected by provisions of this Act, which are 5 now adversely impacted by lo^ng and associated 6 activities, will be enhanced by the cessation of such 7 activities, and opportunities for new businesses com- 8 patible with forest and ecosystem preservation will 9 appear. 10 (17) Sequoia National Forest adjoins Sequoia 11 National Park on the north and south, surrounds 12 the Redwood Mountain and Grant Grove sections of 13 Kings Canyon National Park, and with the Sierra 14 National Forest bounds the entire west side of the 15 main part of Kings Canyon National Park. Lo^ng 16 on the Sequoia National Forest severely impacts the 17 views fix)m and between these parks and from the 18 celebrated Generals' Highway connecting them. Add- 19 ing to the negative impacts is the traffic of lo^ng 20 trucks using the public highways adjacent to the 21 parks. Among the Sequoia grove^ in and adjacent to 22 the Kings River watershed, where visitors expect na- 23 tional-park conditions, logging operations spoil the 24 experience for many, including visitors to the Mon- 25 arch and Jennie Lakes Wildernesses, which abut the •HR SISS IH 292 6 1 timber sales. Moreover, debris and soil eroded from 2 logging and formerly logged areas are carried down 3 slopes and streams into the once-pristine Sequoia 4 groves of the Monarch Wilderness, and into the 5 Kings River. 6 (18) One of the fundamental purposes of this 7 Preserve is to conserve the stands of Sequoiadendron 8 giganteum and other ancient trees, along with con- 9 necting and associated forests and other Federal 10 lands, including cut-over and otherwise damaged for- 11 est land, within a portion of the Sequoia National 12 Forest and a portion of the Sierra National Forest, 13 and to conserve and restore the scenery, natural ob- 14 jects and wildhfe, and to provide for the enjoyment 15 of the same in such manner and by such means as 16 will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment and 17 amazement of future generations and for the devel- 18 opment of scientific information. 19 SEC. 3. DEFINmONS. 20 (a) As used in this Act, the term "National Forest 21 Preserve" means forested land or land in close association 22 with forests \idthin existing National Forests or on other 23 United States public land that is dedicated in perpetuity 24 for scientific study, recreational activity, and/or environ- 25 mental protection, and on which commercial timber har- •BR sus m 293 7 1 vest or further commercial or private development is pro- 2 hibited. 3 (b) The term "the Secretary" means the Secretary 4 of Agriculture, except as otherwise expressly provided. 5 SEC. 4. ESTABUSHMENT OF THE GIANT SEQUOIA NA- 6 TIONAL FOREST PRESERVE. 7 (a) Establishment. — In furtherance of the pur- 8 poses of this Act, certain federally owned lands within the 9 Sequoia and Sierra National Forests in the State of Cali- 10 fomia, which comprise approximately 442,425 acres as 1 1 generally depicted on a map entitled, "Giant Sequoia Na- 12 tional Forest Preserve, 1993", dated and num- 13 bered are hereby designated as the Giant Sequoia 14 National Forest Preserve (hereafter in this Act referred 15 to as the "Preserve"). 16 (b) Map and Legal Description. — (1) Not later 17 than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 18 the Secretary shall file a map and a legal description of 19 the Preserve established under subsection (a) with the 20 Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on 21 Agriculture of the United States House of Representatives 22 and with Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 23 and the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutri- 24 tion of the United States Senate. Such map and descrip- 25 tion shall have the same force and effect as if included •HR S183 IH 294 8 1 in this Act. Such map and description shall be made avail- 2 able for public inspection in the office of the Forest Super- 3 visor, Sequoia National Forest, in the office of the Re- 4 gional Forester, United States Forest Service, Region 5, 5 in the office of the Superintendent, Sequoia National 6 Park, in the office of the Director, National Park Service, 7 Department of the Interior and in the office of the Chief 8 of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 9 (2) The Secretary may correct clerical and typo- 10 graphical errors in the legal description referred to in 11 paragraph (1). 12 SEC. 6. PURPOSES. 13 (a) Resource Protection and Restoration. — 14 The Preserve shall be established to protect and restore 15 the ecological, botanical, zoological, biological, scientific, 16 aquatic, atmospheric, scenic, and recreational resources of 17 the area within its boundaries. 18 (b) Sequoia Groves and Forest Ecosystem. — 19 The Preserve shall be established to protect the Giant Se- 20 quoia groves as well as all contiguous forests within the 21 boundaries of the Preserve, and to restore the entire forest 22 ecosystem within the boundaries of the Preserve to a natu- 23 ral state. •HR SISS IB 295 9 1 (c) Habitat. — The Preserve shall provide optimum 2 habitat for all naturally occurring species, in accordance 3 with the Endangered Species Act. 4 (d) Recreation, Interpretation, Study. — The 5 Preserve shall provide opportunities for recreation, inter- 6 pretation, and scientific study consistent with the other 7 purposes of this Act. 8 (e) Water, Air, and Scenic Quality. — The Pre- 9 serve shall provide optimum water quality, air quality, and 10 scenic quality within its boundaries, consistent with the 1 1 provisions of all other Federal and State laws. 12 (f) Prohibition. — No activities shall be permitted 13 within the Preserve that are inconsistent with the pur- 14 poses Usted in subsections (a) through (e). 15 SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD. 16 (a) Establishment. — There is hereby established 17 the Giant Sequoia Scientific Advisory Board (hereinafter 18 referred to as the "Board"). The Secretary shall consult 19 and seek the advice and recommendations of the Board 20 with respect to — 21 (1) the measures needed to protect and manage 22 the natural and scientific values of the Preserve; and 23 (2) the administration of the Preserve with re- 24 spect to policies, programs, and activities which are 25 specifically intended to retain and restore the natu- 2% 10 1 ral ecological processes of the Preserve, with special 2 attention to preservation of the ancient forest 3 ecosystems, including those of the Giant Sequoias. 4 The Board may make recommendations to the Secretary 5 with regard to new research opportunities which may exist 6 within the Preserve designed to gain scientific information 7 for future interpretation of the ecology and evolution of 8 this area, to add to the understanding of the importance 9 of natural systems, and to enhance enjoyment by visitors 10 to the Preserve. The Board shall encourage public partici- 11 pation in connection with such recommendations and re- 12 quest public input before making such proposals to the 13 Secretary and before any meeting between the Secretary 14 and the Board as referenced in subsection (e) of this sec- 15 tion. No recommendation by the Board shall be binding 16 upon the Secretary. 17 (b) Membership. — The Board shall be composed of 18 members, who shall be appointed by the Secretary as 19 follows: 20 (1) Three members from several persons ree- 21 ommended by the Chief of the Forest Service, to in- 22 elude (A) a forest ecologist to serve as Chair of the 23 Board, (B) a forest microbiologist, and (C) a con- 24 servation biologist, all of whom may be employees of 25 the Forest Service. •HR SISS IH 297 11 1 (2) Three members from several persons rec- 2 ommended by the National Academy of Sciences, to 3 include (A) a hydrologist with expertise on Sierra 4 Nevada watersheds, (B) a wildlife biologist, and (C) 5 a fisheries biologist. 6 (3) Three members from several persons rec- 7 ommended by the California Academy of Sciences, to 8 include (A) a plant biologist with expertise on 9 Sequoiadendron g^ganteum, (B) a soil scientist with 10 expertise on the Sierra Nevada, (C) a lay person 1 1 from a nongovernmental noncommercial organization 12 dedicated to the conservation of natural resources in 13 the Sierra Nevada. 14 (c) Terms. — Each member of the Board shall be ap- 15 pointed to serve for a term of 3 years, except that one 16 of the initial appointees of each nominating official or or- 17 ganization shall serve an initial term of 4 years, one of 18 the initial appointees of each nominating official shall 19 serve an initial term of 2 years, and one of the initial ap- 20 pointees of each nominating official shall serve an initial 21 term of 1 year. 22 (d) Appointment. — The members of the Board shall 23 be appointed within 90 days of the date of enactment of 24 this Act. •HR 21SS IH 298 12 1 (e) Consultation. — The Secretaiy, or a designee, 2 shall from time to time, but at least annually, meet and 3 consult with the Board on matters relating to the protec- 4 tion and restoration of the Preserve and potential and on- 5 going research programs within the Preserve. 6 (f) Compensation. — Members of the Board shall 7 serve without compensation as such, but the Secretary is 8 authorized to pay, upon vouchers signed by the Chair, the 9 expenses reasonably incurred by the Board and its mem- 10 bers in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act. 1 1 (g) Vacancies. — ^Any vacancy in the Board shall be 12 filled in the same manner in which the original appoint- 13 ment was made. 14 SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION. 15 (a) In General. — The Secretary, acting through the 16 Forest Service, shall administer the Preserve as a separate 17 unit within the National Forest svstem in accordance with 18 the purposes and provisions of this Act. 19 (b) Annual Recommendations. — The Secretary, in 20 cooperation and consultation with the Secretary of the In- 21 terior and the Administrator of the Environmental Protec- 22 tion Agency (or their successors), shall make yearly rec- 23 ommendations to the President and to Congress on other 24 areas to be designated National Forest Preserves, •HR SISS IH 299 13 1 (c) Other Area Designations.— Any existing des- 2 ignated wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, or special 3 management areas lying partly or wholly within the 4 boundaries of the Preserve at the date of enactment shall 5 retain such designation and shall continue to be managed 6 accordingly. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to pro- 7 hibit designation of additional areas within the boundaries 8 of the Preserve as wilderness or to prohibit their designa- 9 tion under similar protective status. 10 (d) Management Plan. — Based on recommenda- 1 1 tions of the Board, within 2 years after the date of enact- 12 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a detailed 13 and comprehensive management plan ("plan") for the 14 Preserve. The initial plan and subsequent plans shall be 15 freestanding documents. The plans shall include but not 16 be limited to — 17 (1) measures for the preservation and restora- 18 tion of the ecological, botanical, zoological, biological, 19 scientific, aquatic, atmospheric, scenic and rec- 20 reational resources of the area; and 21 (2) identification of all other measures intended 22 to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act, 23 including specific delineation of planned administra- 24 tive activities to carry out the provisions of sub- 25 sections (d) through (m) of section 6. •HR 2153 IH 300 14 1 (e) Transportation. — The Secretary, acting 2 through the Forest Service and based upon recommenda- 3 tions of the Board, shall include as part of the plan a com- 4 prehensive transportation plan for the Preserve. In order 5 to protect the natural features of the Preserve, reduce user 6 conflicts, and ensure visitor safety, the Secretary is au- 7 thorized, consistent with the purposes and provisions of 8 the Act, to regulate and control times and means of access 9 and use of the Preserve and parts thereof. Nothing in this 10 section shall be construed to prohibit the use of motorized 11 vehicles or aircraft for emergency and other essential ad- 12 ministrative services, including those provided by State 13 and local governments, or when necessary, for authorized 14 scientific research: 15 (1) Roads. — Based on recommendations by the 16 Board, the transportation plan shall include a de- 17 tailed analysis of roads needed to be retained and 18 maintained for restorative, recreational, interpretive, 19 administrative, and scientific purposes. Consistent 20 with the purposes and provisions of this Act, roads 21 and associated developed facilities within the Pre- 22 serve shall be located in areas which were developed 23 prior to the establishment of the Preserve. To cany 24 out the purposes and provisions of this Act, particu- 25 larly with regard to wildlife protection and regenera- •mt 215S IH 301 15 1 tion of the forest, the transportation plan shall also 2 include a program of permanent road closures. The 3 transportation plan shall indicate on which remain- 4 ing roads motorized travel and/or recreation, such as 5 by automobiles, 4-wheel drive vehicles, motorized 6 dirt bikes or snowmobiles, shall be allowed, as well 7 as on which roads or trails nonmotorized, mecha- 8 nized vehicles, such as mountain bikes, shall be al- 9 lowed. The construction of new roads is inconsistent 10 with the purposes of this Act, but maintenance of 11 existing roads is allowed, as are improvements for 12 reasons of pubUc safety and environmental protec- 13 tion. 14 (2) Trails. — Based on recommendations by 15 the Board and consistent with the purposes and pro- 16 visions of this Act, the Secretary shall provide for 17 appropriate nonmotorized, primitive recreation op- 18 portunities within the Preserve, including possible 19 development of new trails and restoration and main- 20 tenance of existing trails. The transportation plan - V 21 shall indicate which trails ^vill be Umited to non- 22 motorized, nonmechanized recreation, such as by 23 horseback, and which will allow nonmotorized, 24 mechanized recreation, such as by mountain bike. 25 Grenerally, there shall be no use of trails by motor- •BR tm IH 302 16 1 ized vehicles (except in the case of motorized wheel- 2 chairs on trails specifically designed and constructed 3 for their use); generally, use of motorized vehicles 4 shall be restricted to roads only as delineated in sec- 5 tion 5(d)(1). The transportation plan shall include 6 provisions ensuring adequate and appropriate rec- 7 reational trail opportunities for disabled individuals. 8 (f) Recreation and Interpretation. — Based on 9 recommendations by the Board and consistent with the 10 purposes and provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall 1 1 provide for recreational use of the Preserve and shall pro- 12 vide recreational and interpretive facilities, including trails 13 and campgrounds, for the use of the public. The Secretary 14 may assist adjacent affected local governmental agencies 1^ in the development of related interpretive programs. 16 (g) Regeneration. — Based on recommendations by 17 the Board and consistent with the purposes and provisions 18 of this Act, the Forest Service shall implement the regen- 19 eration plan required by the Stipulation for Entiy of 20 Judgment dated 12/27/89 in Sierra Club v. United States 21 Forest Service, Case No. CVF-87-263 EDP. The objec- 22 tive of regenerating cut-over giant Sequoia Groves will be 23 to restore these areas, as nearly as possible, to their 24 former natural forest condition, provided that restoration 25 activities have minimal negative impact on the root sys- •HR 81SS IH 303 1 terns of the Giant Sequoias. Such work shall commence 2 within 1 year after the enactment of this Act and shall 3 be completed within 5 years after enactment. 4 (h) Scientific Study and Research. — Based on 5 recommendations by the Board and consistent with the 6 purposes and provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall 7 permit the use of the Preserve for scientific study and re- 8 search, except that the Secretary may impose such restric- 9 tions as may be necessary to protect public health and 10 safety and environmental well-being. 11 (i) Fire Management. — ^Acting upon a fire policy 12 and plan developed by the Board and consistent with the 13 purposes and provisions of this Act, the Secretary may 14 take action to reduce fuel load and restore native densities 15 of the forest. A plan shall be written with a goal of elimi- 16 nating fire control activities within the Preserve, except 17 as necessary to protect life and property. Such plan must 18 be implemented within 2 years of the date of enactment 19 of this Act. Until such time as the Board determines na- 20 tive densities have been sufficiently restored, limited con- 21 trolled burning may be allowed, consistent with the pur- 22 poses and provisions of this Act, in accordance with the 23 fire policy and plan noted above. Fuel reduction activities 24 should not utilize tractors, motorized cables, or other such 25 heavy ground equipment where such use would cause dam- •HRSUS IH 304 18 1 age to PVeserve soils, plant root systems, or wildlife habi- 2 tat. Draft animals may be used where appropriate. 3 (j) Hunting and FisraNG. — Based on reconmienda- 4 tions of the Board, the Secretary may permit hunting and 5 fishing on lands and waters within the Preserve consistent 6 with the purposes and provisions of this Act and in accord- 7 ance with applicable Federal and State law. Consistent 8 with the purposes and provisions of this Act, the Secretary 9 may designate zones where and establish periods when no 10 hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public 11 health and safety, protection of resources, scientific re- 12 search and activities, or public use and enjoyment. Except 13 in emergencies, any regulations issued by the Secretary 14 under this subsection shall be put into effect only after 15 consultation with the appropriate State agencies respon- 16 sible for hunting and fishing activities. Nothing in this 17 subsection shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction 18 or responsibilities of the State of California with respect 19 to wildlife and fish within the Preserve. 20 (k) Timber Cutting. — (1) Consistent with the pur- 21 poses and provisions of this Act, timber cutting shall not 22 be permitted on Federal lands within the Preserve except 23 for scientific study or as consistent with the fire plan as 24 established by the Board. Timber cutting for scientific 25 purposes shall in no case exceed V20 of 1 percent of the •HR 2153 IH 305 19 1 total Preserve acreage in any given year. Any timber cut- 2 ting for scientific study must be approved by a Vz mtyority 3 vote of the Board. Timber cutting within 500 yards of Se- 4 quoia groves is prohibited. In no case shall any timber cut- 5 ting be permitted for commercial purposes. No timber in 6 the Preserve shall be included as part of any allowable 7 sale quantity of timber. 8 (2) The Secretary is authorized to buy out any exist- 9 ing signed timber contracts wthin the boundaries of the 10 Preserve at the time of enactment, in accordance with ap- 1 1 plicable Federal law. 12 (1) Mineral and Geothermal Leasing. — 13 (1) Patents. — No patent may be issued under 14 the mining or geothermal laws of the United States 15 after the date of enactment of this Act for locations 16 and claims made before the enactment of this Act on 17 Federal lands located within the boundaries of the 18 Preserve. 19 (2) Administration. — ^All mineral and geo- 20 thermal exploration, filing of claims, extraction and/ 21 or development on federally owned lands within the 22 Preserve is prohibited. 23 (3) Withdrawal.— Federal lands within the 24 exterior boundary of the Preserve are hereby with- 25 drawn from all forms of location, entry, and patent «R tl5S IH 306 20 1 under the United States mining laws, and from the 2 operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United 3 States, including all laws pertaining to geothermal 4 leasing. 5 (m) Water Rights. — (1) With respect to the Pre- 6 serve designated by this Act, Congress hereby reserves a 7 quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes of this 8 Act. The priority date of such reserved rights shall be the 9 date of enactment of this Act. 10 (2) The Secretary and all other officers of the United 1 1 States shall take steps necessary to protect the rights re- 12 served by paragraph (1), including the filing by the Sec- 13 retary of a claim for the quantification of such rights in 14 any present or future stream adjudication in the courts 15 of the State of California in which the United States is 16 or may be joined and which is conducted in accordance 17 with the McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. 666). 18 (3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a relin- 19 quishment or reduction of any water rights reserved or 20 appropriated by the United States in the State of Califor- 21 nia on or before the date of enactment of this Act. 22 (4) The Federal water rights reserved by this Act are 23 specific to the Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve lo- 24 cated in the State of California designated by this Act. 25 Nothing in this Act related to reserved Federal water shall •HR 3153 m 307 21 1 be construed as establishing a precedent with regard to 2 any future designations, nor shall it constitute an interpre- 3 tation of any other Act or any designation made pursuant, 4 thereto. 5 (n) Grazing Rights. — (1) Based on recommenda- 6 tions by the Board and consistent with the purposes and 7 provisions of this Act, the Secretary may make allowances 8 for grazing of cattle within the boundaries of the Preserve, 9 provided that all such grazing shall be ended within 10 10 years of the date of enactment of this Act. 11 (2) The Secretary is authorized to buy out any exist- 12 ing leases for cattle grazing ^^^thin the boundaries of the 13 Preserve or to allow use of comparable land on other Na- 14 tional Forest lands in exchange for any existing leases for 15 cattle grazing within the boundaries of the Preserve at the 16 time of enactment of this Act, in accordance with applica- 17 ble Federal law. 18 (o) Public Safety. — Nothing in this Act shall pro- 19 hibit the Secretary from undertaking or permitting those 20 measures within the Preserve reasonably necessary to en- 21 sure public safety and prevent loss of life and property. 22 SEC. 8. ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES. 23 (a) Payments to Local Governments. — In the 24 case of lands indicated under this Act for inclusion in the 25 Preserve, in lieu of payments under the Act of May 23, \ •HR S18S IH 308 22 1 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) and under chapter 69 of title 31 2 of the United States Code, for each year (or portion of 3 a year) after such acquisition, the Secretary shall make 4 annual payments under this section to the local govem- 5 ment of each poUtical subdivision within the boundaries 6 of which such lands are located which local government 7 would have received real property tax revenues if such 8 lands were privately rather than publicly held. 9 (b) Amount of Payment. — The amount of the pay- 10 ment to be made to a local government under this section 1 1 for any lands referred to in subsection (a) shall be equiva- 12 lent to the real property tax which would be paid to the 13 local government with respect to such lands in the fiscal 14 year concerned if the lands were in private ownership and 15 were to be used for timber production. For any parcel of 16 property, such amount shall be referred to for purposes 17 of this section as the "tax-equivalency amount". 18 (c) Uses of Payments. — ^At least one-half of all 19 moneys paid to the local political subdivisions as the tax- 20 equivalency amount under this Act shall be dedicated for 21 the purpose of public education. Local political subdivi- 22 sions receiving payments under this Act shall provide an 23 annual accounting to the Secretary for all uses of such 24 payments. •HR SlU IH 309 23 1 (d) Determination of Amount. — For each fiscal 2 year, the Secretary, after consultation with the Comptrol- 3 ler General, shall determine a proposed tax-equivalency 4 amount for all lands within the Preserve. Upon determin- 5 ing the proposed tax-equivalency amount for any political 6 subdivision, the Secretary shall notify the local govem- 7 ment concerned. If the local government notifies the See- 8 retary that the local government accepts the Secretary's 9 estimate, the Secretary shall promptly make such payment 10 to the local government. 1 1 (e) Disputes. — If a local government objects to the 12 Secretaiys estimate of the tax equivalency amount pro- 13 posed to be paid by the Secretary under this section for 14 any fiscal year to that local government, the local govem- 15 ment shall notify the Secretary in writing of the amount 16 which the local government estimates to be the correct tax- 17 equivalency amount. Upon receipt of such notice, the Sec- 18 retary shall appoint an arbiter. The local government shall 19 also appoint an arbiter. The arbiters appointed by the 20 local government and the Secretary shall jointly appoint 21 a third arbiter. The three arbiters shall con^>rise an arbi- 22 tration panel which shall determine the tax equivalency 23 amount to be paid under this section. The determination 24 of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the Secretary 25 and the local government and shall not be subject to judi- siaiH 310 24 1 cial review, except as provided in sections 10 and 11 of 2 title 9 of the United States Code. 3 (f) Costs of Arbitration. — The costs of arbitra- 4 tion shall be paid by the Secretary, but if the tax-equiva- 5 lency amount determined by an arbitration panel estab- 6 hshed under subsection (d) is closer to the amount speci- 7 fied by the Secretary than to the amount estimated by 8 the local government, the costs of arbitration shall be de- 9 ducted from the tax equivalency amount paid by the Sec- 10 retary to the local government under this section. 11 (g) Community Assistance Task Force. — (1) The 12 Secretary shall establish a community assistance task 13 force (hereinafter referred to as the "task force") to over- 14 see assistance to local communities in those counties that 15 include lands within the Preserve or contain facilities that 16 mill timber therefrom at the time of enactment of this Act. 17 Any local community in the region that is impacted by 18 loss of Federal timber sales proven to result from imple- 19 mentation of this Act may request assistance from the 20 task force. The task force shall verify the stated need for 21 the claim and, if verified, provide the following types of 22 assistance — 23 (A) establishment of local community task 24 forces, retraining programs for workers, technical 25 assistance, loans and grants to help communities di- •HR 21SS IH 311 25 1 versify their economies, and job counseling and job 2 placement services; and 3 (B) the facilities, equipment, and personnel of 4 the agencies administered by the Secretary may be 5 used to provide such assistance. 6 (2) The task force shall cease to exist 5 years after 7 the date of its establishment by the Secretary. 8 (3) Any worker displaced from a job in the timber 9 industry in the immediate area as a direct consequence 10 of this Act may request assistance from the teisk force. 11 (4) The task force shall encourage and develop em- 12 ployment opportunities in forest ecosystem restoration, 13 recreation, and other forms of employment compatible 14 with the purposes and provisions of this Act. 1 5 SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 16 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 17 sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. •HR S16S IH BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 05018 547 7 \ ISBN 0-16-044742-9 9 780160"447426' 0000