151 



secure this goal, save money by reducing money-losinij timber sales, and 

 freeing up these funds for ecologic management that does not threaten these 

 Sequoia. 



Whether all 442,425 acres need to be in the Preserve, the Committee can 

 consider. You should be aware that under the current style of management, 

 logging these lands has cost far more than has been received in cash - or the 

 value of timber assets traded for roads. 



If a smaller Preserve is selected, the Forest Service should be required 

 to make a comprehensive site and soil analysis so that logging on these lands 

 is directed toward sites that can grow timber at no cost to the taxpayers, 

 while applying ecologic management. If it is concluded that some lands that 

 can't grow timber on a positive return basis should remain in the sale area 

 base, the Service should be directed to select several areas by average 

 site so that it can develop a strategy for defining least cost - most benefit 

 subsidies. Each sale action should show that it is less costly and more 

 effective than securing the desired resource result directly. 



The Sequoia National Forest is a classic example of the 40 Forests that 

 eats up over lOOX of its timber receipts. The Sierra, is a classic example of 

 the 60 Forests where receipts after earmarking are sufficient to offset only 

 l/3rd of appropriated timber costs. For 10 years the Forest Service has 

 mumbled about dealing with below-cost sales. The financial record shows that 

 both Forests have high cost-negative return timber programs. 



Within the general framework of the overall agency budget, the relative 

 appropriation level should be maintained for each Forest with direction to 

 implement the Giant Sequoia Preserve as this Committee may create it, and to 

 test changes in management style. Maintenance of the proportionate funding of 

 recent years will created an incentive to fairly test useful innovations. 



Because of the overall interest in environmental management in 

 California, these two Forests would be useful candidates for testing ways to 

 devise new systems. 



As used in the 1960 Act the "multiple use" definition says, among other 

 things, that the Forest Service is not required to secure: 



"the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return 

 or the greatest unit output." 



There are those who argue that "greatest dollar return" is the sanction 

 for losing money. However, the common meaning of "return" is "profit after 

 all costs". MUSY does not provide a sanction for losing money. 



On the other hand, the definition clearly directs: 



"that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; 

 and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, 

 each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the 



12 



