46 



Mr. Farr. And that the property that is wanted to be acquired, 

 only a small portion of that — the old-growth redwoods — will be des- 

 ignated wilderness, so that there will continue to be timber har- 

 vests under the rest of the Forest Service-managed land? 



Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir, that is my understanding of the intent of 

 the bill. 



Mr. Fare. Now, does that change the tax structure at all when 

 it is under Federal ownership? 



Ms. Bailey. Yes, it does very much. And I am not wholly familiar 

 with how the Federal tax, back to the county, comes. 



Mr. Farr. But there will continue to be marketable timber off 

 the land, which will derive local revenues from the mills and so on? 



Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman on my own time, it is interesting — we 

 have an old expression, I think, those of us who live in sensitive 

 ecological areas — I know in Congressmen Doolittle's and Pombo's 

 districts there are some very beautiful areas like Taho and Yosem- 

 ite, and we sort of talk about California as the area of "If we build 

 it, they will come." 



I think the one thing we often overlook is the fact that the an- 

 cient redwood forests, which are relatively not that accessible, cer- 

 tainly not as accessible as some of the better-known parks, but 

 maintain a part of nature that is very difficult to put a value on — 

 and in California, with one out of nine people in the United States 

 living there, the pressure in that State is always to try to manage 

 its incredible natural resources versus the need for development 

 and use of those resources for economic purposes. 



I think this bill is sort of symbolic of that battle in California; 

 and the question is, do you have a willing seller and a willing 

 buyer, and that gets down to how much money you are going to 

 have to pay for this. And I think that what you indicated earlier, 

 the Chair — and the author indicated that the purpose of this legis- 

 lation is to try to seek a path where all parties of interest can sit 

 down and negotiate with someone at the table, and obviously the 

 Federal Government has to be one of those partners; you can't 

 leave it up to the State to be alone because the management scope 

 here is essentially within the Federal jurisdiction. 



I think we are going to have other battles like this in California 

 in each of our districts. I represent Big Sur; not that we are inter- 

 ested in federalizing Big Sur, but there is a national forest in Big 

 Sur, and they are interested in acquiring some more land, and I 

 know both of these gentlemen represent areas of unique environ- 

 mental concerns. 



And I would hope that as the subcommittee considers this bill, 

 that — essentially we have to take faith walks — ^that if we can en- 

 courage the proper parties to sit at a table, that reasonable people 

 can come up with a reasonable conclusion of what to do with it. 

 And I think the bill moves in that direction. 



I appreciate the testimony of those that are here today to point 

 that out. 



Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. 



The gentleman is recognized. 



Mr, POMBO. Thank you. I just had a couple of questions, too, one 

 to Ms. Bailey. 



