97 



Congressional Budget Office 



U.S. Congress 

 Washington, DC 20515 



Robert D. Reischauer 

 Director 



March 8, 1994 



Honorable George E. Brown, Jr. 

 U.S. House of Representatives 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 



Dear Congressman: 



I am pleased to respond to the five questions you asked in your letter of 

 February 24 regarding the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for 

 H.R. 2153, the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act of 1993. 



1. Reduction in Timber Program Costs in Affected Forests . In our analysis of 

 the bill, we estimated that once fully implemented. H.R. 2153 would result in 



^mbe^roggj^ij^jlg^otalin^Jjgjj^^mniio^^^^wrTlBin^onsi^ 

 with your point that the average annual timber program losses in the affected 

 forests currently total at least $5 million. CBO expects, however, that the 

 bill's provisions would take at least one year fi-om the date of enactment to 

 be fully implemented. Thus, we anticipate that the full impact of such savings 

 would not be realized until fiscal year 1996. 



2. Payments to Counties . We agree with you that the payments to coimties fi-om 

 the affected forests currently total about $1 million annually. Our cost 

 estimate reflects a savings of this amount beginning in fiscal year 1995. As 

 with the timber program costs discussed above, we assimied that it would take 

 at least one year after the bill's enactment to fully implement the bill's 

 provisions. Consequently, CBO estimated that the savings from lower 

 payments to counties would be about $500,000 in fiscal year 1994 and aroimd 

 $1 million in each of the subsequent years. 



In calculating the tax equivalency payments that would be paid to the affected 

 counties in lieu of the payments they would be due under current law, CBO 

 relied on information from your staff, the Forest Service, the California State 

 Board of Equalization, and the local counties. The Board of Equalization 

 provided us with the 1993 Value of Timberland schedule sent to all counties 

 in the state. This schedule established the value per acre for tax purposes of 



