131 



agency which can change as Adminlscrations change wich Presidential elections. 



Opponents of the bill before you today have said that since the Sierra 

 Club signed a Sequoia Forest Plan Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service 

 and other interested parties, we should not be looking for additional 

 legislative protections for these forests. However, the Club signed this 

 agreement in an attempt to get some scientific direction for the management of 

 the giant sequoias and their associated surrounding forests. The agreement 

 created no-cut zones in and around the groves in an attempt to gain some 

 minimal protection while research established the appropriate management for 

 long-term protection of the groves. The cutting levels and grove boundary 

 protective measures set by the settlement agreement were based on estimates 

 reflecting missing data and guesswork. We hoped that future scientific study 

 would lead to better long-term protection. The past few years have proven 

 that the timber targets set by this settlement agreement are Impossible to 

 meet. The settlement agreement was a choice between fighting long court 

 battles or offering minimum protection for the sequoia groves while scientific 

 research determined the approprte management for their long-term protection. 

 All sides agreed, and we discussed this extensively during negotiations, that 

 signing the agreement would not preclude the other parties from seeking 

 additional legislative solutions to forest management. 



The agreement was an interim administrative solution to protect the 

 sequoia groves from imminent destruction, and, in fact, the agreement will 

 expire in several years. By signing the agreement, the Sierra Club gave up 

 the legal right to challenge several timber sales. In turn, the Forest 

 Service was supposed to produce studies to supply the science needed to manage 

 these forests. They have not done this, and therefore, the cut level has not 

 been revised, trtilch was another thing the Forest Service committed itself to 

 do under the agreement. 



Opponents of this bill also say that the sequoia groves are already 

 protected by President Bush's proclaaation in 1992. This Is not true. 

 President Bush's proclamation only perpetuated the incomplete protections 

 afforded to the groves by the mediated settlement agreement; it ignored 

 completely the fragile ecosystem surrounding the groves. Legislation is the 

 only option for protecting these magnificent trees for their multl •millennial 

 life spans . 



The Solution 



Representative George Brown's bill H.R. 2153) seeks to protect these 

 unique trees and to preserve and restore the ecosystem upon which they depend 

 for all time. Briefly, I will cover what the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act 

 would do, and why the Sierra Club thinks this bill provides an appropriate way 

 to go about preserving the remaining unprotected giant sequoias. 



The bill establishes a Giant Sequoia National Forest Preserve consisting 

 of 442,425 acres In Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, where virtually all 

 statutorily unprotected giant sequoias grow. ^ 



H" 



