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 



