282 



Date: January 12, 1994 



The Honorable Charlie Rose 



Subconunlttee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources 



105 Cannon House Office Building 



Washington, D.C. 20515 



RE: Giant Sequoia Preservation Act (HR-21S3) 



Dear Chairman Rose; 



Ne urge you to support the passage of the Giant Sequoia Preservation Act, 

 HH-2153. 



We believe this measure offers a reasonable and practical means of 

 managing the land within the proposed preserve for the benefit of the 

 American public. 



We have lived on private property within the boundaries within Sequoia 

 National Forest for 13 years, and our home and property is immediately 

 adjacent to what will hopefully become one of the boundaries of the 

 preserve. We have closely followed management activities in the Forest 

 over the years and we are intimately familiar with the many laws and 

 implementing regulations governing management of the National Forests. We 

 ore absolutely convinced that existing laws regulating Sequoia National 

 Forest have been implemented in o way contrary to the best interest of the 

 American people. For whatever reasons, timber production has obviously 

 been the driving force guiding almost all Forest Service activities over 

 the years. Everything from fire prevention to fire "simulation", from 

 wildlife habitat "improvement" to streamside "restoration" has been used 

 as a pretext for industrial-scale logging operations. We believe strongly 

 that if the Forest Service is allowed to continue with a program of 

 commercial timber "sales" this lopsided emphasis on logging will continue. 



We also would liKe to bring to your attention some of the inaccurate 

 statements some opponents of this bill have made both to the public and to 

 Congress . 



The claim has been repeatedly mode that the bill will cause a "dangerous" 

 fire hazard. For example, an "analysis" co-authored by Jim Crates, the 

 Forest Supervisor when the logging in Sequoia Groves took place, states 

 that the bill only allows limited burning to achieve native densities of 

 vegetation and therefore does not allow for sufficient fire control. In 

 fact, the bill specifically requires the development of a fire management 

 plan with the "goal" of eliminating fire control some time in the future. 

 In fact, not only is controlled burning specifically allowed, no 

 limitations are given except that no new "roads" are to be built and 

 mechanicol equipment cannot be used for fuel reduction where it would 

 "cause damage to Preserve soils, plant root systems, or wildlife habitat." 



As the bill is presently written, logging for the purpose of fuel 

 reduction is allowed within the preserve with the limitations listed 

 above, except in Sequoia Groves. We believe a science-based fire 

 management plan as mandated by this bill is critically important for the 

 long-term survival of this forest. 



