234 



Fontaine page 2 



information in the CASPO Report has validated our suspicions. 



The MSA required a Reforestation Report to be written. You have received letters from 

 the California Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, and recently from the Wilderness 

 Society documenting our serious concerns with this report. You have been 

 distributing this report to Congressmen and to the media as proof that all is well on 

 Sequoia Forest. The professional registered foresters who have reviewed your report 

 conclude that you did not follow Regional Guidelines and that it is scientifically invalid 

 and must be redone. Other studies that must be done according to the provisions of 

 the MSA are dependent upon a valid Reforestation Report. For example, a review of 

 the yield tables must await completion of a valid Reforestation Report. In addition a 

 Cumulative Watershed Effects report must be done and receive peer review. 



We are very concerned that the studies called for in the MSA that would effect timber 

 harvest volumes are not getting done or are not being done adequately. If it were not 

 for the new information in the CASPO Report and the new interim CASPO Guidelines, 

 timber harvest on the Forest would be business as usual and the environmentalists 

 who signed the MSA in good faith would have so far gained virtually nothing from the 

 MSA. 



In the meantime, what protection are the Giant Sequoias receiving? The Groves as 

 defined by the MSA are being mapped accurately and receive a 500 foot buffer from 

 timber harvest. However, no one can claim to know what kind of long term permanent 

 protection they need. The requirement for a 500 foot buffer around the outermost 

 Sequoias in the Groves was tjargained across the table and was not based upon any 

 knowledge whatsoever about the current requirements of the Groves, let alone any 

 knowledge about their long term requirements. This type of Grove delineation and 

 management is not ecosystem management. We must identify and protect all of the 

 factors which sustain the Groves. For example, we learned at the Giant Sequoia 

 Symposium last year in Visalia that the Groves have not always been in their present 

 location. Their response to climatic change is not known. Scientists tell us we may be 

 in for a period of global warming. How can we justify the massive manipulation of 

 timber harvesting the surrounding forests without knowing the long term effects upon 

 the Giant Sequoias? 



The provisions of the MSA were never intended to be permanent. At most they were to 

 have been in effect for the approximate ten year life of the Forest Plan. We have heard 

 the Forest Service claim that President Bush's proclamation of 1 992 protects the 

 Groves. This Proclamation merely perpetuated Grove protection in the same manner 

 as did the MSA; both suffer from the same problem of lack of information and scientific 

 basis. 



The legislation we are supporting would give the Giant Sequoias permanent 

 protection in so far as we are capable of doing. It would set up a permanent Preserve 

 to protect the Giant Sequoias and their surrounding forests. Commercial timber 



