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 said, we do regard it now as essentially obsolete and superseded by 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 



