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. 



