```

[House Report 106-570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-570

======================================================================

 
       GIANT SEQUOIA GROVES PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

 April 11, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4021]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 4021) to authorize a study to determine the best 
scientific method for the long-term protection of California's 
giant sequoia groves, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 4021 is to authorize a study to 
determine the best scientific method for the long-term 
protection of California's giant sequoia groves.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On February 14, 2000, President Clinton directed the 
Secretary of Agriculture to review and recommend within 60 days 
``whether appropriate stewardship for the sequoia groves 
warrants exercise of my authority under the Antiquities Act'' 
by creating a Sequoia National Monument in the 1.2 million acre 
Sequoia National Forest. The 60-day period ends April 14, 2000.
    There are approximately 43 giant sequoia groves outside the 
boundaries of the Sequoia National Park. These are found 
primarily in the Sequoia National Forest, but several groves 
also exist in the Sierra and Tahoe National Forests. Additional 
groves are found on the Tule River Indian Reservation, in the 
Calaveras Bigtrees State Park, the Mountain Home State Forest, 
on Bureau of Land Management land at Case Mountain, and on 
various tracts of private property.
    The sequoia groves cover a total of approximately 19,345 
acres within the Sequoia National Forest. Despite this 
relatively small acreage, National Monument proposals range 
from 358,000 acres to 470,000 acres. Several noted scientific 
experts on sequoias have opposed any policy that would reduce 
management flexibility in the forest. They are concerned that a 
single plan for all the sequoia groves will increase risks to 
individual trees and jeopardize the long-term integrity of the 
groves.
    In 1988, the Forest Service imposed a moratorium on 
management projects in the sequoia groves on Forest Service 
land pending additional study and completion of a Land 
Management Plan Amendment. At the time, land managers lacked 
clear data on grove boundaries, buffer zones and watersheds, 
and the long-term effects of various types of management 
practices. A Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) negotiated in 
1990, followed by a 1992 Presidential Proclamation, provided 
policy direction to protect, preserve and restore the sequoia 
groves. The Proclamation and follow-up activities under the MSA 
led to an extensive inventory of trees and to development of 
the Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative, the purpose of which is 
to identify best management practices and to advise the various 
public and private managers of the groves.
    In 1993 Congress requested an independent scientific review 
of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem, known as the Sierra Nevada 
Ecosystem Project (SNEP). This review included an examination 
of the MSA and offered recommendations for scientifically based 
mapping and management of the sequoia groves. The final SNEP 
report, published in 1996, concluded, ``The MSA seems to 
provide the flexibility necessary to develop a scientifically 
supportable plan for giant Sequoia management. * * * '' It also 
noted that inaction, or lack of management, is the most 
significant threat to giant sequoias, the groves, and their 
ecosystems, due to historically unprecedented fuel loads in 
most of the groves which has increased the likelihood of 
catastrophic wildfire.
    The giant sequoia has been extensively studied, but land 
managers lack a comprehensive report, focused specifically on 
implementing the best possible combination of science and 
management experience, to develop the individual grove 
management plans required by the MSA. Currently, the Forest 
Service is managing its diverse collection of sequoia groves 
with a variety of management activities, including the use of 
prescribed fire and other silvicultural practices. However, the 
Forest Service does not allow any mechanical forest thinning or 
commercial logging within 1,000 feet of the sequoia trees, in 
accordance with the MSA.
    Many scientists, government officials, and the local public 
are very concerned that efforts to draw an administrative line 
around the groves, in the form of a national monument, will 
limit management tools and actually hinder, rather than help, 
efforts to protect the trees. The National Academy of Sciences 
study authorized by H.R. 4021 would independently identify best 
management practices, review the adequacy of existing state and 
federal management, review existing scientific literature and 
make recommendations for future management policy. The report 
would also recommend ways to improve coordination between the 
three federal agencies, the State of California, the Tule River 
Tribe and the private landowners responsible for stewardship of 
the groves.
    The scientific goals of H.R. 4021 are consistent with the 
purpose of the Scientific Advisory Team proposed in another 
bill, H.R. 2077, offered by the late Congressman George Brown 
(D-CA) in 1999. This critical review will assemble and update 
the information on the ecology and management of giant sequoia 
groves, a task that is sorely needed. The sponsors of H.R. 4021 
believe, however, that the National Academy of Sciences can 
provide a thoroughly independent scientific review that an 
internally appointed team (as proposed in H.R. 2077) would be 
unable to produce.
    H.R. 4021 authorizes the scientific study and resulting 
recommendations for future management, and it will prohibit use 
of the Antiquities Act to designate lands on the Sequoia 
National Forest until at least 90 days after publication of a 
final report on the results of the study.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 4021 was introduced on March 16, 2000, by Congressman 
George Radanovich (R-CA). The bill is cosponsored by 
Congressmen William Thomas (R-CA) and Calvin M. Dooley (D-CA). 
The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within 
the Committee to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. 
On March 28, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. 
On April 5, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to consider 
the bill. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill by unanimous 
consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was then 
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a 
roll call vote of 20 to 12, as follows:

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
enactment of this bill would affect direct spending by 
authorizing the use of timber receipt funds for the National 
Academy of Sciences study (these funds are permanently 
appropriated). However, the Congressional Budget Office 
indicates that the bill ``would have no significant effect on 
the federal budget''.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 7, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4021, the Giant 
Sequoia Groves Protection and Management Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                           Steven Lieberman
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4021--Giant Sequoia Groves Protection and Management Act of 2000

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4201 would have no 
significant effect on the federal budget over the 2000-2005 
period. Implementing H.R. 4021 would affect direct spending; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go-procedures would apply. We estimate, 
however, that any such impact would be negligible in any single 
year. H.R. 4021 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 4021 would direct the Forest Service to fund a 
scientific assessment of the giant sequoia groves in California 
and prohibit the President from designating certain lands as 
national monuments until 90 days after the study is completed. 
The bill would authorize the Forest Service to spend up to 
$800,000 for an 18-month study by the National Academy of 
Sciences on the scientific basis for managing giant sequoias. 
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the Forest 
Service would use funds that otherwise would be spent for roads 
and trails. These funds are derived largely from timber 
receipts and are available without further appropriation. CBO 
expects that changing the purpose for which those mandatory 
funds could be spent would change the timing of outlays 
relative to current law, but would have no significant effect 
on direct spending in any single year.
    Provisions delaying possible designations of lands within 
the Sequoia National Forest as a national monument could, under 
some conditions, affect offsetting receipts from existing 
timber contracts and other federal expenditures. Based on 
information from the Forest Service, however, CBO expects that 
such effects are unlikely. Existing contracts on some of the 
lands under consideration for designation currently generate 
net offsetting receipts of about $1 million a year form the 
sale of federal number resources. Implementing this bill would 
affect those only if, under current law, the President 
otherwise would have modified those contracts as part of a 
designation of a national monument. CBO has no basis for 
predicting whether the President would make such a designation 
under current law or whether a designation would occur within 
the time period covered by the bill. Based on past monument 
declarations under the current Administration, however, we 
expect that the existing contracts would be largely unaffected 
by any designation, we expect that the monument declarations 
under the current Administration, however, we expect that the 
existing contracts would be largely unaffected by any 
designation, at least in the near term.
    Hence, we estimate that implementing this restriction on 
the President's authority would have no significant effect on 
direct spending in the next five years.
    The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. This estimate was 
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We join the Administration in strongly opposing H.R. 4021. 
This legislation would effectively circumvent the President's 
authority to use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect the 
giant sequoias by mandating an 18-month scientific study prior 
to national monument designation. The study is unnecessary, 
duplicative and costly. Sequoias have been studied extensively 
for decades. As recently as March 1997, the Sierra Nevada 
Ecosystem Project summarized the science, and concluded that 
the giant sequoia ecosystems are ``in an ecologically 
vulnerable state, with the health of these systems far from 
optimal.''
    More importantly, the study's real purpose is to 
preemptively derail protection efforts for the sequoia 
ecosystem under the guise of ``science.'' Despite overwhelming 
support for sequoia protection and ample scientific data on 
management, sequoias remain without permanent protection. 
Current management is based, not on sound science, but on the 
terms of a settlement negotiated in response to logging abuses 
in the 1980's and on an executive order that does little to 
protect the sequoias' ecosystem. The Forest Service has been 
unable to produce a management plan for a decade. Congress, 
which has had years to act on this issue, has also failed to 
act; bills to protect the sequoias have been repeatedly 
introduced since the 102nd Congress. In this Congress, H.R. 
2077 was introduced by the late George Brown yet denied a 
hearing.
    Congressional and administrative inaction prompted the 
President to consider action to protect this invaluable 
resource. H.R. 4021 thwarts presidential authority granted by 
Congress almost a 100 years ago under the Antiquities Act. In 
the last 90 years, all but three presidents have used this 
authority to designate over 100 national monuments, including 
the Grand Canyon. Past efforts to repeal or diminish this 
presidential power have failed. If the President acts in this 
instance and Congress does not support the designation, the 
appropriate process would be for Congress to amend or repeal 
the monument's designation.
    Rather than permanently protecting the sequoias, H.R. 4021 
permanently stalls monument designation. H.R. 4021 impedes the 
protection of these irreplaceable treasures and undermines the 
Antiquities Act, and we urge our colleagues to oppose it.

                                                     George Miller.

                                  

```