286 



to the extent that it designs a blanket elimination of worthwhile, politically, and 

 economically acceptable timber harvest which is not destructive of the forest 

 ecosystem. 



E. Timber harvest for commercial purposes should be baimed, of course, in 

 the sequoia groves and appropriate grove buffer areas. However, I particularly 

 oppose the proposed legislative ban on einy timber cutting within 500 yards of 

 sequoia groves. Many circumstances exist where cutting is appropriate for ecosystem 

 enhancement and protection (from extreme and uimatural fire hazards) within that 

 zone. As observed in the recently released Clinton Administration final plan 

 concerning the habitat of the northern spotted owl, thiiming of trees under 80 years 

 old in once-logged stands can accelerate the stand's recovery of old growth forest 

 character. I believe thinning to accelerate old growth recovery is appropriate in some 

 Sequoia National Forest stands now proposed for virtual elimination of logging. 



F. The Forest Service and the timber industry definitely need to harmonize 

 and adjust to the limits of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem and the public passion to 

 protect the Sierra. Cuts must come way down from historic levels. Implementing 

 selective logging practices in an economically feasible and non-destructive way on a 

 long-term basis is challenging. It requires more sophisticated forestry than the a, b, c 

 approach of industrial forestry. Where the Forest Service can't conduct sustainable 

 forestry in both the environmental and political senses, logging should be effectively 

 banned. But I expect that a certain level of sustained timber yield well in excess of the 

 Preserve conception is acceptable, appropriate, and economically feasible. 



G. To a great extent, I expect that the improved regionwide planning and 

 rethinking of sustained yield logging in the Sierra Nevada will resolve some of the 

 management planning challenges at the Sequoia National Forest level. 



4. The Forest Service should be judged, pro or con, on the basis of deeds and realistic 

 plans for action, and not merely on testimony about management intentions. 



5. Some legislative redrafting is necessary from any perspective. Sec. 5 (c) mandates 

 the impKJSsibUity that the Preserve shall provide "optimum habitat for all naturally 

 occurring species." Deer and spotted owl, for example, have very inconsistent 

 optimum habitats. On its face, the Preserve proposal is contrary to provision of 

 optimum deer habitat. Some redrafting for consistency is necessary. 



6. 1 am skeptical of the potential efficacy of the proposed "Scientific Advisory Board" 

 mechanism as it is now prop>osed. 



