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. 



