GIANT SEQUOIA NATIONAL MONUMENT PROPOSAL

NRDC & SEQUOIA TASK FORCE

Giant sequoias are awe-inspiring, rare, and vulnerable. The old giants are the most massive living things on Earth. Relics of a vast primordial forest, they are confined to a few groves in California's Sierra Nevada, but nonetheless are perhaps the world's best known trees. They cling to a precarious existence, dependent on the natural fire and groundwater regimens of the surrounding ecosystem. Astonishingly, over half of these groves lie not in parks or preserves, but in Sequoia National Forest, where they have no permanent protection.

Based on bi-partisan legislation championed by the late Representative George Brown. Giant Sequoia National Monument would preserve these groves and the surrounding forest ecosystem on which they depend. Four hundred thousand acres of national forest would receive monument protection, along with a trove of old-growth-dependent wildlife species. Preserved too would be the many archeological and early historic sites that testify to mankind's long relationship with the huge trees. Administration of the monument would follow practices successfully used in the adjacent Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, leaving behind the controversy and uncertainty in which current management is mired.

Giant sequoias are literally the most monumental of species - trees, in John Muir's words, of "singular majesty." The largest exceed thirty feet in trunk diameter, and reach higher than the Statue of Liberty, base pedestal and all, higher indeed than the top of the U.S. Capitol Building dome. The oldest specimens have stood for over three thousand years. They are widely considered the largest of all living things on the face of the Earth.(1)

Millions of years ago, members of the sequoia family grew across North America. Today the giant sequoia's range is confined to a narrow strip in the central and southern Sierra Nevada, the storied montane spine of California. They survive in some 75 groves, according to a recent congressionally authorized study (the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report, published by the University of California), towering above the other conifers with which they coexist. About a third of these groves lie within Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, but the majority - 38 - are found in the adjoining Sequoia National Forest. Others are in scattered ownership, including state lands. other federal management, an Indian reservation, and private holdings.

The old growth ecosystem that giant sequoias naturally occur within and depend upon also supports a number of rare wildlife species. Historically, the giant sequoia belt was California condor country and, indeed, the last condor captured in the wild was found nesting in a sequoia, halting efforts to log the grove (temporarily). The region is home to California spotted owls, elusive wolverines, and vanishing Pacific fishers, all plausible nominees for listing as threatened or endangered. Other rare or sensitive wildlife that frequent the greater sequoia ecosystem include the American marten, the northern goshawk, and the mountain lion. Surviving populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs and other hard-pressed Sierra Nevada amphibians also occur there, as do protected fish like the Kern River Rainbow Trout and Volcano Creek Golden Trout. The vicinity is also home to the greatest density of rare and endemic plants in the entire, diverse Sierra Nevada.

National forest lands in this ecosystem share a border with the Tule River Indian Reservation and are rich in sites of cultural and archeological importance, including Yokuts ancestral lands and much of the Tubatulabal Nation. Among the more outstanding are pictographic rocks and caves found near Deer Creek Mill, Capinero Creek, and Dennison Peak. Other locations of great significance include Slate Mountain and the Moses roadless areas. Historical sites with remnants of early Euroamerican settlement activity also occur throughout much of the ecosystem.

Mighty and enduring though they are, giant sequoias are in trouble. Alteration of the natural fire regimen that promotes seedling germination has in many places interfered with regeneration. Whole generations of young trees have been lost because seeds failed to sprout. Where seedlings do take root, they are stressed by the ozone pollution that rises from the Central Valley and concentrates along western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. The trees' immense stature belies a shallow and vulnerable root system, with the young trees particularly susceptible to injury and soil compaction by heavy equipment, vehicles, concentrated foot traffic, and construction. Lacking a tap root, giant sequoias also need a reliable source of year-round subsurface water in a region with little summer rainfall; they suffer when logging in their watersheds reduces and diverts groundwater flows.

Virtually none of the giant sequoia groves in Sequoia National Forest, and little of the surrounding forest ecosystem, have permanent preservation status. The groves themselves are not currently being directly logged. However, that could change under another administration, and already timber sales are in the works for the near-by forest. The existing (1988) forest management plan directs "[m]anage giant sequoia groves with the objective of perpetuating the species, preserving the old growth 'specimen' trees, and producing a sustained yield of sawtimber." A 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement of administrative challenges to the forest plan committed the national forest to developing a giant sequoia management plan and prohibited commercial logging of the groves, at least pending its adoption. This sequoia-specific management plan has never been produced, however, and the MSA does not bar logging for the "forest health" rationales that increasingly are used with even large scale Forest Service timber sales. Commercial sale of giant sequoias themselves on any Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land is effectively prohibited through September 30, 2000, by an appropriations bill rider. And pursuant to a 1992 presidential proclamation, the Department of Interior has proposed to withdraw the actual groves on the Sequoia National Forest from mining and mineral leasing eligibility (the proclamation also prohibits managing the groves for "timber production" but does not ban logging if other reasons are asserted).

The National Park Service manages its part of the greater sequoia ecosystem much more conservatively. NPS uses prescribed fire in developed areas of the park, to reestablish the natural fire patterns critical to giant sequoia regeneration. The agency goes so far as to rake flammable materials from the trunks of some well known trees prior to burns, but generally does not rely on "forest health" intervention, let alone logging, in managing ecological processes. NPS also has an active program, including removing buildings, to protect soil resources from compaction and other damage.

Although proposals to halt timber sales on national forests typically raise "economic" objections, those would be particularly inapt in this case. Timber sales from the Sequoia National Forest have dropped to low levels in recent years, down from 85 million board feet in 1991 to under 7 million in 1999, forestwide (including areas outside the proposed monument). The region's largest industries, still growing, are construction and recreation. The Sequoia National Forest already has more recreation visitors annually than Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. And its logging program has been historically one of the biggest money losers in the national forest system. In 1993, Representative Brown estimated that annual losses from the forest's timber sales ran to $8 million annually.

Preservation of the remaining giant sequoia ecosystem, along the lines of this monument proposal, has had extensive congressional airing. Starting in 1993, Representative Brown introduced a series of bills covering as much as 442,000 acres of the giant sequoia ecosystem, to protect it from further damage. The version of his legislation that included the most acres and received the greatest attention, H.R. 2153, introduced in 1994, attracted many co-sponsors, a number of them from California (see attached list). Since Representative Brown's death, Senator Boxer has indicated that she is working on a similar bill. The geographic area included in the monument proposal is split between the 19" and 21 S' congressional districts of Representatives Radanovich and Thomas, neither of whom has supported proposals to protect the ecosystem in the past. Typically, most timber from the Sequoia National Forest has been milled in Terra Bella, in Representative Thomas' district.

The Giant Sequoia National Monument we propose will protect close to 400,000 acres currently managed by the Forest Service (403,000 acres minus 17,000 acres of in-holdings). This compares to the 402,000 acres that Sequoia National Park uses to protect its half of the ecosystem (with somewhat fewer groves). The land includes all groves in the Sequoia National Forest that lack permanent protection (37 out of the 38 listed by SNEP, the Agnew grove lying entirely within the Monarch Wilderness). It also includes the surrounding forest, management of which affects fire regimens, groundwater flows, and wildlife populations in and around the groves. The monument land is in two units, both contiguous with Sequoia National Park. They incorporate some of the most intact old growth forest in the Sierra Nevada, as well as damaged lands whose rehabilitation will affect the welfare of the giant sequoia groves and their ecosystem. A boundary description and map are attached.

This monument could be managed by the Forest Service, rather than being transferred to the National Park Service.(2) In that case, the presidential proclamation would make the monument the dominant reservation without extinguishing the national forest designation, and the Park Service would take a cooperating role. The proclamation would include specific language based on Park Service practices for forest management and restoration, including an end to logging. Normal planning under the National Forest Management Act would continue as to those areas and issues where the proclamation left significant discretion.

Other elements of the designation would include:

• Inholdings - monument status of surrounding land not to be used as a reason for condemnation; willing-seller acquisitions of inholdings and abutting land to be managed as part of the monument.
• Existing leases and special use permits - not affected by the designation, and monument status not to be used by any federal agency as a reason to terminate or refuse renewal.
• Existing water and (if any) treaty rights - not affected; unappropriated water rights reserved as necessary to protect the purposes of the monument; managing agency directed to cooperate with other authorities to secure such additional water as needed for those purposes.
• Mining and minerals - withdrawn (subject to valid existing rights) from all forms of entry, location, leasing, or other disposition, except exchanges to further the protective purposes of the monument.
• Roads - limited to those in existence at time of designation; off-road vehicle use may be permitted, limited to existing roads (whether open to highway vehicles or not) and in accordance with a transportation plan.
• Science advisory panel - a panel of scientists chosen equally by the National Academy of Sciences, California Academy of Sciences, and applicable Secretary, to draft an ecosystem plan deciding ecological issues left open by the proclamation, including restoration of previously logged areas and plantations, use of herbicides and pesticides, and whether continued grazing interferes with restoration of more natural fire regimens and damages riparian functions.

Few more deserving objects of national monument protection can be found than the ecosystem that supports the world's last stands of giant sequoias. Extraordinary it is, that more than half the remaining groves lack permanent protection. More extraordinary still is the opportunity this offers - the chance to create a conservation legacy of immediate international significance and repute. The time is propitious for such a stroke of the pen: economic and social factors have not been so favorable for decades. And the need is great: local agency decisionmakers are under pressure to roll back partial and de facto protections and increase logging levels, starting with the surrounding forest, and potentially extending to the sequoia groves themselves - based on "restoration" practices the Park Service deems too intrusive - as soon as next year. The time has come to save these lands for all time.

(1) Some subterranean fungi and clonal plant communities are thought by some to be larger.

(2) If NPS were to manage the monument exclusively, congressionally established wild and scenic river corridors and national forest lands within T. 15 S., R. 29 E., in the northern unit, should be excluded to avoid any possible conflict with legislation that specifically mentions management of those areas by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Agee, J. K. 1968. Fuel conditions in a giant sequoia grove. M .S. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Agee, J. K., R. H. Wakimoto, and H. H. Biswell. 1978. Fire and fuel dynamics of Sierra Nevada conifers. Forest Ecology and Management 1:255-265.

Anderson, M. K., and M. J. Moratto. 1996. Native American land-use practices and ecological impacts. Pages 187-206 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. 11. Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Anderson, R. S. 1994. Paleohistory of a giant sequoia grove: the record from Log Meadow, Sequoia National Park. Pages 49-55 in P. S. Aune, technical coordinator. Proceedings of the Symposium on giant sequoias: their place in the ecosystem and society, 23-25 June 1992, Visalia, California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-151.

Anderson, R. S., and S. J. Smith. 1994. Paleoclimatic interpretations of meadow sediment and pollen stratigraphies from California. Geology 22:723-726.

Bancron, L., T. Nichols, D. Parsons, D. Graber, B. Evison, and S. van Wagtendonk. 1985. Evolution of the natural fire management program at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Pages 174- I 80 in S. E. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore, W. C. Fischer, and R. W. Mutch, editors. Proceedings-symposium and workshop on wilderness Fire, 15-18 November 1983, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-182.

Beetham, N. M. 1962. The ecological tolerance range of the seedling stage of Sequoia giganreum. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Bloom, Peter H., G. R. Stewart and B. J. Walton. 1986. The Status of the Northern Goshawk in California, 1981-1983. CDFG Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report 85-1.

Buskirk, S. W. and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages. 283296 in Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, comps., eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press..

California Department of Fish & Game, USDA Inyo National Forest, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Conservation Strategy for the Volcano Creek Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquabonita). December 1998.

Caprio, A. C., and T. W. Swetnam. 1995. Historic fire regimes along an elevational gradient on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, California. Pages 173-179 in J. K. Brown, R. W. Mutch, C. W. Spoon, and R. H. Wakimoto, technical coordinators. Proceedings: symposium on fire in wilderness and park management, 30 March - I April 1993, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NTH GTR-320.

Caprio, A. C., L. S. Mutch, T. W. Swetnam, and C. H. Baisan. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of giant sequoia radial growth response to a high severity fire in A.D. 1297. Contract report to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Mountain Home State Forest.

Coulter, M.W. 1966. Ecology and management of fishers in Maine. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, University College of Forestry. Ph.D. thesis.

Demetry, A. 1995. Regeneration patterns within canopy gaps in a giant sequoia - mixed conifer forest: implications for forest restoration. M.S. thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff Arizona. USA.

Demetry, A. 1998. A natural disturbance model for the restoration of Giant Forest Village, Sequoia National Park. Pages 142-59 in W. R. Keammerer and E. F. Redente, editors. Proceedings of High Altitude Revegetation Workshop, No. 13. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Information Series No. 89. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Dennis, J. G., and R. H. Wauer. 1985. Role of Indian burning in wilderness Fire planning. Pages 296298 in J. B. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore, W. C. Fischer, and R. W. Mutch, editors. Proceedings - symposium and workshop on wilderness fire, 15-18 November 1983, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-182.

Donaghey, T. L. 1969. The properties of heated soils and their relationships to giant sequoia (Sequoia giganteum) germination and seedling growth. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Du, W. and L. Fins. 1989. Genetic variation among five giant sequoia populations. Silvae Genetica 3 8:70-76.

Everett, R., C. Oliver, J. Saveland, P. Hessburn, N. Diaz, and L. Irwin. 1994. Adaptive ecosystem management. Pages 340-54 in Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment, vol. II. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNWGTR-318.

Gale Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes. 1998. Pages 187-191 in vol. 4. California, Pacific Northwest, Pacific Islands. Detroit: Gale.

Gebauer, S. B. 1992. Changes in soil properties along a post-fire chronosequence in a sequoia - mixed conifer forest in Sequoia National Park, California. M.S. thesis, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Graber, D. M. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. Pages 709-741 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Graber, D. M. 1985. Coevolution of National Park Service fire policy and the role of national parks. Pages 345-349 in S. E. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore, W. C. Fischer, and R. W. Mutch, editors. Proceedings-symposium and workshop on wilderness fire, 15-18 November 1983, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-182.

Graumlich, L. J. 1993. A 1000-year record of temperature and precipitation in the Sierra Nevada. Quaternary Research 39:24q-255.

Grulke, N. E., P. R. Miller, and D. Scioli. 1996. Response of giant sequoia canopy foliage to elevated concentrations of atmospheric ozone. Tree Physiology 16:575-81.

Harmon, M. E., K. Cromack, Jr., and B. G. Smith. 1987. Coarse woody debris in mixed-conifer forests, Sequoia National Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17: 1265-1272.

Hartesveldt, R. J. 1962. The effects of human impact upon Sequoia giganteum and its environment in Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park, California., Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Hartesveldt, R. J., H. T. Harvey, H. S. Shellhammer, and R. E. Stecker. 1975. Giant sequoia of the Sierra Nevada. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Harvey, H. T., H. S. Shellhammer, and R. E. Stecker. 1980. Giant sequoia ecology. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Hughes, M. K., and P. M. Brown. 1992. Drought frequency in central California since 101 B.C. recorded in giant sequoia tree rings. Climate Dynamics 6:161-167.

Jennings, M. R. and Marc P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final Report Submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Contract Number 8023.

Jennings, M. R. 1996. Status of Amphibians. Pages 921-944 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Final Report to Congress, vol. fI, Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Kaufmann, M. R., R. T. Graham, D. A. Boyce, W. H. Moir, L. Perry, R. T. Reynolds, R. L. Bassett, P. Mehlhop, C. B. Edminster, W. M. Block, and P.S. Corn. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-246.

Keifer, M. 1998. Fuel load and tree density changes following prescribed fire in the giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest: the first 14 years of fire effects monitoring. Pages 306-309 in T. L. Pruden and L. A. Brennan, editors. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.

Keifer, M., N. L. Stephenson, and J. Manley. In press. Prescribed fire as the minimum tool for wilderness forest and fire regime restoration: a case study from the Sierra Nevada, CA. Proceedings of the Wilderness Science Conference, May 1999.

Kilgore, B. M. 1972. Fire's role in a sequoia forest. Naturalist 23:26-35.

Kilgore, B. M. 1973a. Impact of prescribed burning on a sequoia-mixed conifer forest. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 12:345-375.

Kilgore, B. M. 1973b. The ecological role of fire in Sierran conifer forests. Journal of Quaternary Research 3:496-513.

Kilgore, B. M. 1985. What is 'natural" in wilderness fire management? Pages 57-67 in S. E. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore. W. C. Fischer, and R. W. Mutch, editors. Proceedings-symposium and workshop on wilderness tire, 15-18 November 1983, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-182.

Kilgore, B. M., and H. H. Biswell. 1971. Seedling germination following fire in a giant sequoia forest. California Agriculture 25:8-10.

Kilgore, B. M., and R. W. Sando. 1975. Crown-fire potential in a sequoia forest after prescribed burning. Forest Science 21:83-87.

Kilgore, B. M., and D. Taylor. 1979. Fire history of a sequoia-mixed conifer forest. Ecology 60: 129142.

Landres, P. B., P. S. White, G. Aplet, and A. Zimmermann. 1998. Naturalness and natural variability: definitions, concepts, and strategies for wilderness management. Pages 41-50 in D. L. Kuihavy and M. H. Legg, editors. Wilderness and natural areas in eastern North America: research, management, and planning. Center for Applied Studies, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas.

Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. N. Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wildlife management in the National Parks. Reprinted as pages 28-45 of Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 28:28-45.

Lloyd, A. H., and L. J. Graumlich. 1997. Holocene dynamics of treeline forests in the Sierra Nevada. Ecology 78:1 1991210.

Millar C. I. 1997. Comments on historical variation & desired condition as tools for terrestrial landscape analysis. Pages 105-131 in S. Sommarstrom, editor. What is watershed stability? Proceedings of the 6th biennial watershed management conference, Water Resources Center Report No. 92, University of California, Davis, California, USA.

Millar, C. I., M. Barbour, D. L. Elliott-Fisk, J. R. Slievock, W. B. Woolfenden. 1996. Significant natural areas. Pages 839850 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. 11, Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Miller. C. 1998. Forest pattern, surface fire regimes, and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. California. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Miller, C., and D. L. Urban. 1999. A model of surface fire, climate, and forest pattern in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ecological Modelling 1 14:113-135.

Miller, P. R., N. E. Grulke, and K. W. Stolte. 1994. Air pollution effects on giant sequoia ecosystems. Pages 90-98 in P. S. Aune, technical coordinator. Proceedings of the symposium on giant sequoias: their place in the ecosystem and society. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-151 .

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California. Dept. Fish and Game, Inland Fish. Div. Rancho Cordova. Final Report for Contract No. 21281F.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, R. A. Knapp. 1996. Status of fish and fisheries. Pages 953-973 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Mutch, L. S. 1994. Growth responses of giant sequoia to fire and climate in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. M.S. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Mutch, L. S., and T. W. Swetnam. 1995. Effects of fire severity and climate on ring-width growth of giant sequoia after burning. Pages 241-246 in S. K. Brown, R. W. Mutch, C. W. Spoon, and R. H. Wakimoro, technical coordinators. Proceedings: symposium on fire in wilderness and park management, 30 March - 1 April 1993, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-320.

National Interagency Forest Center. 1998. Wildland and prescribed fire management policy: implementation procedures reference guide. National Interagency Forest Center, Boise, Idaho.

National Park Service. 1988. Management policies: U. S. Department of the National Park Service. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1992. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks fire management plan. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California.

National Park Service. 1998. Director's order #18: Wildland fire management. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1999. Amend appendix H.-fire management plan. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California.

Parsons, D. J. 1990. Restoring fire to the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest: reconciling science, policy, and practicality. Pages 271-279 in H. G. Hughes and T. M. Bonnicksen, editors. Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.

Parsons, D. J. 1995. Restoring fire to giant sequoia groves: what have we learned in 25 years? Pages 256-258 in S. K. Brown, R. W. Mutch, C. W. Spoon, and R. H. Wakimoto, technical coordinators. Proceedings: symposium on fire in wilderness and park management, 30 March - I April 1993, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-320.

Parsons, D. S., and S. H. DeBenedetti. 1979. Impact of fire suppression on a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 2:21-33.

Parsons, D. S., D. M. Graber, J. K. Agee, and S. W. van Wagtendonk. 1986. Natural fire management in national parks. Environmental Management 10:21-24.

Piirto, D. D. 1977. Factors associated with tree failure of giant sequoia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Roy, D. G. and Vankat, J. L. 1999. Reversal of human-induced vegetative changes in Sequoia National Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:399-412.

Ruggiero, Leonard F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.

Rundel, P. W. 1969. Distribution and ecology of the giant sequoia ecosystem in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Runde[, P. W. 1971. Community structure and stability in the giant sequoia groves of the Sierra Nevada, California. American Midland Naturalist 85:478-492.

Schreck, C. B., and R. J. Behnke. 1971. Trouts of the upper Kern River Basin, California with reference to systematics and evolution of western North American Salmo. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28: 987998.

Shevock, J. R. 1996. Status of rare and endemic plants. Pages 691-707 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Davis'. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.

Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Raney and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest site biology of the California condor. Condor 88:228-241.

Sprugel, D. C. 1991. Disturbance, equilibrium, and environmental variability: what is 'natural' vegetation in a changing environment? Biological Conservation 58: I-18.

Stark, W. 1968. Seed ecology of Sequoia giganteum. Madrono 19:267-77.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Stecker, R. E. 1969. Giant sequoia insect ecology. Contract research report to National Park Service. Western Region.

Stephens, S. L. 1995. Effects of prescribed and simulated fire and forest history of giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum [Lindley Btichholz]) - mixed conifer ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.

Stephens, S. L. 1999. Giant sequoia regeneration in group selection openings in the southern Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management 120:89-95.

Stephenson, N. L. 1987. Use of tree aggregations in forest ecology and management. Environmental Management 11:15.

Stephenson, N. L. 1994. Long-term dynamics of giant sequoia populations: implications for managing a pioneer species. Pages 56-63 in P.S. Aune, technical coordinator. Proceedings of the Symposium on giant sequoias: their place in the ecosystem and society, 23-25 June 1992, Visalia, California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-151.

Stephenson, N. L. 1996. Ecology and management of giant sequoia groves. Pages 1431-1467 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Wildlands Resources Center Report No.37, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources, University of California, Davis, California, USA.

Stephenson, N. L. 1999. Reference conditions for giant sequoia forest restoration: structure, process, and precision. Ecological Applications 9:1253-65.

Stephenson, N. L., and A. Demetry. 1995. Estimating ages of giant sequoias. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25:223-233.

Stephenson, N. L., D. S. Parsons, and T. W. Swetnam. 1991. Restoring natural fire to the sequoia mixed conifer forest: should intense fire play a role? Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 17:321-337.

Stohlgren, T. J. 1988. Water dynamics in two Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18: 112735, 1136-44.

Storer, T. I. And R. L. Usinger. 1963. Sierra Nevada Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Swetnam, T. W. 1993. Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 262:885-889.

Swetnam, T. W., and C. H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United States since AD 1700. Pages 1 1-32 in C. D. Allen, technical editor. Fire Effects in Southwestern Forests: Proceedings of the Second La Mesa Fire Symposium, 29-31 March 1994, Los Alamos, New Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMGTR-286.

Swetnam, T. W., C. H. Baisan, A. C. Caprio, R. Touchan, and P. M. Brown. 1992. Tree-ring reconstruction of giant sequoia fire regimes. Final report on Cooperative Agreement No. DOI 80181-0002 to National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. 1963. Cultural Resource Overview of the Southern Sierra Nevada. Report prepared for the USDA Forest Service. Bishop, California.

Twisselman, E. 1971. A botanical scanning of the Kern Plateau. The Kern Plateau Association. Bakersfield, California.

U. S. Forest Service. January 1999. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species for the Sequoia National Forest, Species Accounts.

van Wagtendonk, 1'. W. 1985. Fire suppression effects on fuels and succession in short-fire- interval wilderness ecosystems. Pages 1 19-126 in J. F. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore, W. C. Fischer, and R. \f. Mutch, editors. Proceedingssymposium and workshop on wilderness fire. 15-18 November 1983, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-182.

Wallner, D. and M. Fong. 1982. An analysis of ozone injury to ponderosa and Jeffrey pines in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Contract research report to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California.

White, M., and R.H. Barrett. 1979. A review of the wolverine in California with recommendations for management. Unpublished paper. Prepared for the USDA Forest. By the Dept. of Forestry and Resource Management. College of Natural Resources. University of California, Berkeley. 71 p.

Willard, D. 1995. Giant Sequoia Groves of the Sierra Nevada. A Reference Guide. Berkeley, California.

Williams, M.R. and J.M. Melack. 1997. Atmospheric deposition, mass balances, and processes regulating streamwater solute concentrations in mixed-conifer catchments of the Sierra Nevada, California. Biogeochemistry 37: 111-44.

Wilson, A. E., Grantham, S. D., Driggers, H. G. 1987. Bartolas Country: An Archaeological Overview. Sequoia National Forest, Cannell Meadow Ranger District. October 1987.

Wilson, A. E., Grantham, S. D., Driggers, H. G. 1987. Letter to Carla Cloer regarding Bartolas Country. October 20, 1987. Kernville, CA.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Wildlife: Volume 111. Mammals. California Dept. of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 407 p.

ATTACHMENT 1: BROWN BILL (H.R. 2153)

ATTACHMENT 2: MONUMENT BOUNDARIES (ANNOTATED

• From the intersection of national forest and national park boundaries immediately northeast of Sequoia Lake, i.e. at the northeast corner of section 1, T. 14 S., R. 27 E., north and then east along the border of the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park to its junction with Sequoia National Park, then eastward along that border to its intersection with Jennie Lakes Wilderness, thence along the northern border of Jennie Lakes Wilderness to its intersection with the edge of Sequoia National Park at Mitchell Peak, then north along the park's common border with the eastern edge of the Hume Lake Ranger District, to the southern boundary of the Monarch Wilderness, then westerly along the southern border thereof to the Kings River Special Management Area, and westerly again, along the Management Area's southern border to the point where it intersects with McKenzie Ridge, in section 20, T. 13S, R.27E. (This protects a dense concentration of groves, including Cherry Gap, Bearskin, Landslide, Boulder Creek, Little Boulder Creek, Kennedy, Deer Meadow, Lockwood, and Indian Basin groves, and portions of Grant, Evans, and Converse Basin groves, with the surrounding forest matrix to the extent it is currently unprotected.)
• Southeast along McKenzie Ridge to its intersection with the national forest boundary, near Sequoia Lake, on the west edge of section 1, T. 14 S., R. 27 E. (This follows a natural topographic boundary that marks the edge of the westernmost watershed containing giant sequoias.)
• From the intersection of the national forest and national park boundaries immediately southeast of Sequoia Lake, i.e. at the southeast corner of section 1, T. 14 S., R. 27 E., south along section lines to the southwest corner of section 31, T.14 S., R.28 E. and then east along section lines to a point one-quarter mile west of Pierce Creek on the southern boundary of section 32, T. 14 S., R. 28 E., then south-southeast staying onequarter mile to the west of Pierce Creek until its intersection with the southern boundary of the Hume Lake Ranger District, on the southern edge section 15, T. 15 S., R. 28 E., thence east to the shared border of the national forest and Sequoia National Park, then northeast along that border to its juncture with the boundary of the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park and then north and west along that park's shared boundary with the national forest, back to the point of origin near Sequoia Lake, always excluding private in-holdings intersected and the University of California's Whitaker Forest. (This protects portions of the Redwood Mountain and Big Stump groves and the forest downslope of and continuous with them, as well as providing wildlife habitat adjacent to and influencing fire regimes in the giant sequoia groves.)

• From the intersection, near Dennison Mountain, of the northwestern boundary of the Tule River Ranger District of the Sequoia National Forest with the western edge of Sequoia National Park, in the northeast corner of section 36, T. 18 S., R. 29 E., west and then south along the national forest's western border, around the Tule River Indian Reservation and California Hot Springs, to a point 1 mile north of state route 155, along the western edge of section 15, T. 25 S., R. 31 E. (The portion of this unit to the east of this border encompasses the Black Mountain, Red Hill, South Peyrone, Cunningham, Long Meadow, Starvation Creek, Packsaddle, and Deer Creek groves, and most of the Peyrone grove; the area south of California Hot Springs contains the southernmost sequoia grove in existence, and a belt of closed canopy old growth conifer forest continuous with the grove, close to half of it roadless; included are several spotted owl and goshawk areas; lands along the westernmost perimeter, outside the conifer zone, are included for administrability reasons, to protect California condor foraging habitat, to provide for elevational migrants, and to bring fire-prone brush down-hill of the sequoia ecosystem into monument management.)
• Generally east-northeast a half east, along a line 1 mile north of state route 155, to Bohna Peak and then east-southeast to Black Mountain, always a mile north of route 155, and then eastnortheast to Split Mountain following the ridgeline, but excluding the intersected in-holding(s). (This boundary runs through the high peaks at the southern end of the watersheds described above, and stays well away from the influence zone of a substantial state highway.)
• From Split Mountain, north along the Cannell Meadow Ranger District boundary in existence on January 1, 2000, to its intersection with the Rincon RARE II roadless area border, just east of the intersection of County Road SM99 with Forest Road 41. (This established administrative boundary closely approximates the edge of the mature coniferous forest continuous with the unit's sequoia groves.)
• Along the bottom of the Rincon roadless area (i.e. immediately north of Forest Road 41 and then Forest Road 22505, the Sherman Pass road) to Forest Road 22S 12, the Cherry Hill road. (Incorporates a large and generally pristine roadless area.)
• South along the east edge of the Cherry Hill Road to one-quarter mile past Brush Creek, then eastward a quarter mile south of Brush Creek until that line intersects with the edge of the Woodpecker RARE II roadless area, around section 1, T.23S. R.33E. (Incorporates an area of intact habitat that is generally continuous with that of the Rincon roadless area.)
• Generally south and east along the southwestern border of the Woodpecker roadless area, up to and along the western boundary of the Domeland Wilderness, to a point one quarter mile beyond its intersection with Rattlesnake Creek, in section 1 1, T.22S. R.34E, one and one half miles west of Bald Mountain, more or less. (Generally continuous old growth habitat with that described above and below.)
• Northward along a line one quarter mile east of Rattlesnake Creek to its intersection with the Rincon roadless area, thence along the roadless area boundary to its intersection with the Golden Trout Wilderness. (This section encompasses the eastern extent of the relatively undisturbed band of old growth forest that is continuous with this unit's heavy concentration of sequoia groves to the west and northwest, running around the upper Kern River and through the Golden Trout Wilderness; it incorporates some of the last intact extensive closed canopy habitat for interior forest species in the southern Sierra Nevada.)
• Northwest along the edge of the Golden Trout Wilderness to Sequoia National Park, then west along the park's common border with the national forest, to the point of origin at the northeast corner of section 36, T. 18 S., R. 29 E., excluding the private in-holding centered on section 3, T. 19 S., R. 30 E. that contains much of the Dillonwood grove, unless and until the in-holding is sold to the federal government. (This section contains the Freeman Creek, Silver Creek, Burro Creek, Wishon, Alder Creek, and McIntyre groves (including Carr Wilson, Belknap, and Wheel Meadow sections), and portions of the Mountain Home and Dillonwood groves, as well as the Moses Mountain RARE 11 roadless area.)

Fire The Park Service Approach

Modern fire management in the National Parks may be said to have begun in 1963, when an advisory board appointed by Stewart Udall, then Secretary of the Interior, and chaired by the legendary Aldo Leopold released a watershed report on wildlife (Leopold et al. 1963). The "Leopold Report" (as it became known) recognized that fire suppression and other aggressive policies had altered the very lands that the Park Service had been established to protect; henceforth, it would be a primary goal of managers to restore National Parks to natural conditions. Forests in the western Sierra were singled out for criticism. "Dog-hair thickets" of pine, fir, and brush= "a direct function of overprotection from natural ground fires"-had spread over the forest floor, displacing the native wildlife that miners had observed a century earlier and threatening mature sequoia and other trees with catastrophic fire. Leopold and his colleagues did not offer a solution to the problem of the Sierras, but suggested that finding one should be "of immense concern to the National Park Service" (Leopold et al. 1963).

Since 1968, managers at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks have been engaged in developing a safe, ecologically rational fire policy, focused on the use of prescribed burns (Parsons and DeBenedetti 1979). Burns have been applied both to reduce the unnatural build-up of fuels that Leopold condemned, and to help restore structures and processes that characterized the Sierras more than a century ago, before fire suppression began. In the Parks' sequoia groves, this policy has been remarkably successful. Tree density has already dropped in burn areas to '`pre-settlement" conditions, fulfilling a structural goal (Keifer et al. in press); conifers have begun to assume their original proportions, with sequoia rebounding against the white fir (Keifer 1998); and canopy gaps, which ecologists believe are essential to sequoia development, have begun to reappear (Demetry 1998).

Most importantly, for the first time in generations, sequoias have been seen to regenerate. The variable-intensity burns used in the groves prepare the soil for moistening, induce a "virtual rain" of seeds from the sequoia's serotinous cones, and improve the odds of seedling survival over time (Kilgore and Biswell 1971, Harvey et al. 1980, Stephenson 1994, Mutch & Swetnam 1995). It should be noted that these burns are conducted without preparatory slashing or pi lin•, or logging of trees-a costly procedure with no apparent ecological benefit and with significant potential for ecological harm (Lambert & Stohlgren 1988, Stephenson et al. 1991, NPS 1999, Keifer et al. in press). Clearing is allowed only around the base of established attractions such as the "General Grant" and "General Sherman" trees, which are managed largely for their aesthetic value (NPS 1991, NPS 1999). Prescribed burns have also been undertaken in the Parks' other vegetative communities-ponderosa pine, white fir mixed-conifer, chaparralin which fire is thought to play an essential role.

More recently, managers have prescribed burns near developed areas and along the Parks western boundary to lower the risk of catastrophic fire (NPS 1991). The policy appears effective: burn areas have stopped wildfires several times since the late 1980s (pers. comm.). and the Park Service has increasingly recognized the appropriateness of prescribed burns in reducing fuels (NPS 1998). In Sequoia-Kings Canyon, thinning by mechanical means is indicated only in exceptional cases: to protect sites of historic interest, such as pioneer cabins, that are otherwise liable to burn (pers. comm.) and, as noted above, to enhance a small number of established attractions (NPS 1991). Neither case exists within the proposed Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Demetry, A. 1998. A natural disturbance model for the restoration of Giant Forest Village. Sequoia National Park. Pages 142-59 in W.R. Keammerer and E.F. Redente, editors. Proceedings of High Altitude Revegetation Workshop, No. 13. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Information Series No. 89. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Harvey, H.T., H.S. Shellhammer, and R.E. Stecker. 1980. Giant sequoia ecology. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Keifer, M. 1998. Fuel load and tree density changes following prescribed fire in the giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest: the first 14 years of fire effects monitoring. Pages 306-09 in T.L. Pruden and L.A. Brennan, editors. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.

Keifer, M., N.L. Stephenson, and J. Manley. In press. Prescribed fire as the minimum tool for wilderness forest and fire regime restoration: a case study from the Sierra Nevada, CA. Proceedings of the Wilderness Science Conference, May 1999.

Kilgore, B.M. and H.H. Biswell. 1971. Seedling germination following fire in a giant sequoia forest. California Agriculture 25:8-10.

Lambert, S. and T.J. Stolilgren. 1988. Giant sequoia mortality in burned and unburned stands: does prescribed burning significantly affect mortality rates? Journal of Forestry 86: 44-46.

Leopold, A.S., S.A. Cain, C.M. Cottam, I.N. Gabrielson, and T.L. Kimball. 1963. Wildlife management in the National Parks. Reprinted as pages 28-45 of Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 28: 28-45.

Mutch, L.S., and T.W. Swetnam. 1995. Effects of fire severity and climate on ring-width growth of giant sequoia after burning. Pages 241-246 in S.K. Brown, R.W. Mutch, C.~V. Spoon, and R.H. Wakimoro, technical coordinators. Proceedings: symposium on fire in wilderness and park management, 30 March - 1 April 1993, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-320.

National Park Service. 1991. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks fire management plan. 1991 revision. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California.

-----. 1998. Director's order # 18: Wildland fire management. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

-----. 1999. Amend appendix H.-Fire management plan. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California.

Parsons, D.S., and S.H. DeBenedetti. 1979. Impact of fire suppression on a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 2:21-33.

Personal communications with Jeff Manley and John T. Austin, Natural Resource Specialists. February 2000. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California.

Stephenson, N.L. 1994. Long-term dynamics of giant sequoia populations: Implications for managing a pioneer species. Pages 56-63 in P. S. Aune, technical coordinator. Proceedings of the symposium on giant sequoias: their place in the ecosystem and society, 23_25 June 1992, Visalia, California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-151.

Stephenson, N.L., D.S. Parsons, and T.W. Swetnam. 1991. Restoring natural fire to the sequoia mixed conifer forest: should intense fire play a role? Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 17:321-337.

2/18/00