284 



March 15, 1993 



TESTIMONY ON H.R. 2153 'THE GIANT SEQUOIA PRESERVATION ACT' 



By Dwight Willard 



Aside from my professional background as an attorney, I am an amateur naturalist 

 and conservationist who has developed expertise on the giant sequoia groves, as well 

 as a high degree of knowledge about Sequoia National Forest, the Sierra Nevada, 

 and conifer forests in general. I have written two as yet unpublished books on giant 

 sequoias. I actively protested Sequoia National Forest grove logging practices and 

 plans in 1985-86. I got politically involved again as a volunteer in 1989-1990, when I 

 helped draft and negotiate part of the'Sequoia National Forest Plan "Mediated 

 Settlement Agreement" provisions concerning giant sequoias. But my major sequoia 

 activity has been studying and writing about them rather than effective activism. 



I have a few observations relevant to the debate on the proposed Giant Sequoia 

 Preserve. 



1. The giant sequoia groves themselves and appropriate buffer areas of varying sizes 

 depending on circumstances, unquestionably deserve "preserve"- type protection. 

 Legislation may not be essential for that purpose, but it is appropriate. Giant sequoia 

 preserve areas can be feasibly mapped and legislatively protected. The preserve type 

 legislative protection could take various forms, including discrete preserve units, like 

 Muir Woods National Monument or the original General Grant National Park of 

 1890, larger preserves incorporating more than one grove, or additions to the 

 National Park and/or National Wilderness Preservation System in some cases. I 

 could make a case for addition of an eastern pairt of the Hume Ranger District to 

 Kings Canyon National Park, as was proposed and passed unanimously by the U.S. 

 Senate in 1919. I am in favor of a preserve approach to grove protection. 



2. The present Sequoia National Forest Management Plan, as amended in 1990, does 

 provide interim "preserve" protection for the groves from new logging and road 

 impacts, with the notable exception of Converse Basin Grove. Converse Basin Grove 

 should receive the degree of interim protection accorded other groves under the 

 current Forest Plan. Larger buffer areas of protection than are provided under the 

 plan are appropriate for several groves. The present administrative protections of 

 Sequoia National Forest Groves should be seen as interim protection that should be 

 improved upon in the short-term (particularly regarding protection of Converse 

 Basin Grove) and for the long-term in several respects. 



