[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.