White House Press Briefing by George Frampton

Establishment of Giant Sequoia National Monument


April 15, 2000

PRESS BRIEFING BY GEORGE FRAMPTON, ACTING CHAIR OF WHITE HOUSE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY




                                THE WHITE HOUSE

                             Office of the Press Secretary
                             (Atlanta, Georgia)
___________________________________________________________________________

Embargoed For Release
Until 7:00 A.M. EDT
Saturday, April 15, 2000


                               PRESS BRIEFING BY
                        GEORGE FRAMPTON, ACTING CHAIR OF
                       WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

                           Sheraton Colony Square Hotel
                                        Atlanta, Georgia


2:40 P.M. EDT


     MS. CHITRE:  Good afternoon.  As you know, the President tomorrow will
be going to Sequoia National Forest in California's Sierra Nevada.  And
here to brief you on the President's event is George Frampton,  Acting
Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.  Just a
reminder, this briefing is on the record, but it embargoed until 7:00 a.m.
Eastern Time, tomorrow, Saturday, April 15th.

     MR. FRAMPTON:  Thank you.  That's 4:00 a.m. California time.
(Laughter.)  I'm George Frampton.  I'm the Acting Chair of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality.  And I'm going to talk for a few minutes
about what the President is going to do tomorrow morning, when he leaves
Palo Alto.

     He's going up into the Sierra Nevada to an area in the Sequoia
National Forest called the Trail of One Hundred Giants to sign a
proclamation that will create a new Sequoia national monument.  And the map
that I have behind me shows you the monument boundaries in black.  There's
a southern unit down here and a northern unit, and in between the orange
area there is Kings Canyon, Sequoia National Park.  To orient you about
where this is -- Bakersfield is down to the south, about an hour from the
southernmost boundary of the monument; Fresno is about an hour to the west,
in the Central Calley -- the west of the northern part of the monument --
and Yosemite National Park is about 100 miles north of the northern part of
this map.

     The total acreage of the monument is about 327,000 acres, which is
about a third of the Sequoia National Forest.  The monument runs basically
contiguous with the western and southern boundary of Sequoia, King's Canyon
Sequoia National Park.

     Giant sequoias are the oldest and largest trees on the planet.  Giant
sequoias 25,000 or 30,000 years ago were much more prevalent in the western
United States.  Now there are only about 75 groves of giant sequoias, and
they all occur in a belt which runs along the west side of the Sierra
Nevada mountains from -- northernmost is Mariposa grove in Yosemite
National Park, and run down through Kings Canyon Sequoia and the national
forest down to -- the southernmost grove is at the southern end of the new
national monument.

     There are about 75 groves.  More than half of those groves are not in
the national parks.  So more than half of those groves are not now
permanently protected, until the President signs this proclamation
tomorrow.  He'll be creating the national monument under the Antiquities
Act of 1906, which allows the President to, through executive order, to
protect objects of historic and scientific interest.  The Act has been used
more than 100 times by almost every President.  And as you probably know,
President Clinton has created four national monuments: Grand Staircase in
Utah in 1996, and then earlier this year a new national monument north of
Grand Canyon, and two others in Arizona and California -- a coastal island
national monument and a Agua Fria National Monument to protect prehistoric
dwelling sites.

     The monument will be managed by the U.S. Forest Service, which is part
of the Department of Agriculture.  The President will be joined in a walk
along the trail of the Hundred Giants by Secretary Dan Glickman and by the
supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest, Art Gaffrey.

     Because there are some really unique scientific issues about sequoia
groves, the proclamation directs that the Secretary of Agriculture appoint
a scientific advisory committee, with the assistance of the National
Academy of Sciences, and the scientific advisory committee will guide the
development of a management plan for the new monument over the next three
years.

     A number of things that are important aspects of the management of the
monument that are contained in the proclamation I just want to touch on
because a number of them are directly responsive to concerns or opposition
that has been expressed in the Central Valley to the idea of a monument.
About two months ago, the President asked Secretary Glickman to investigate
the possibility of a monument; the Secretary made his recommendation last
Friday.  There were two public hearings in the valley, a lot of public
comments have been solicited.

     I think that the polling that we have shows, for example, in
California that public support for a monument about 80 percent, 9 or 10
percent opposed; even in the counties nearby in the Central Valley, about
two-to-one in support of a monument.  But there have been a number of
concerns expressed by the public about what this means, public access and
fire management.  So I want to touch on those, although many of those
questions will ultimately be resolved, the details will be resolved through
scientific study and development of a management plan.

     The proclamation specifically directs that the monument will be
managed to support and encourage public and recreational access, and for
educational values.  It is not expected that any roads will be closed.
This is a measure which is designed to protect the groves, not to close off
the forest, so existing recreational uses -- cabins, use of roads -- is
pretty much expected to continue.

     The proclamation does direct that there will be no more commercial
timber sales in the monument.  So commercial logging is ended.  There is a
transition period; there are a number of timber sales that have been sold
already and are ongoing.  And those will be implemented.  That will
probably be over the next two to two and a half years, there will be a
transition period while those sales are finished off.  After that, there
will be no commercial logging on the forest, no mining, new mining claims.

     But recreational access, visitor access, and uses like grazing and
beekeeping will continue.  You may laugh at that, but apparently one of the
big uses of the forest is that people from the Valley take their beehives
up there in the summertime and the bees get strengthened.  Maybe it's the
altitude, or the solitude, I don't know.  But it's a good place to get your
bees strengthened for agricultural uses.  So those kinds of uses will
continue.

     There will, however, be a limitation in the management plan for --
off-road motorized vehicles will have to stay on designated roads.  So the
monument would require that motorized vehicles only be allowed on roads
that are -- old forest roads that are ultimately designated to allow ORVs
or OHVs.

     Valid existing rights will all be maintained.  And the other issue
that has come up in local opposition has to do with camps.  There are a
number of summer camps that use the forest.  One is called the Hume Lake
Christian Camp, which is actually not on federal land, it's on private land
within the monument.  So it would not be affected in any way by the
monument proclamation.  And several camps, several boys' camps, that are on
Forest Service land but use the land by special use permit during the
summer.  Now, they have been concerned about whether those camps would be
closed down.  There's no expectation at all that any of those camps would
in any way be affected by the monument proclamation.

     Finally, the monument -- in the Antiquities Act, there's a requirement
that monument boundaries be the smallest practicable boundaries to protect
the objects of interest -- in this case, the objects are the sequoia groves
and some of the wildlife that is part of their ecosystem.  And the Forest
Service has spent a good deal of time over the last several months
determining a set of boundaries that is the smallest practicable
boundaries.

     And I put up a map over here, if anybody's interested, which shows a
number of other proposals.  In the last 10 years there have been several
bills introduced by then-Congressman George Brown to create a preserve, a
sequoia preserve in this area, with different boundaries.

     There's an environmental group proposal, very detailed.  The Forest
Service put out a set of maps for the public hearing showing all the
previous proposals.  None of the boundaries are exactly the same.  In the
end, what the Forest Service recommended, and the President is going to
sign, is a proclamation that has a set of boundaries that is not identical
to any of these other proposals.  It's a little smaller than all of the
other proposals.  But it's basically designed to provide permanent
protection for the groves themselves, but also for the watersheds,
sub-watersheds that are important to the groves, because both running water
and ground water from uphill are an important part of preserving these
trees.  And also the areas that are zones of fire influence.

     One of the biggest threats to the sequoias right now is that 100 years
of fire suppression in the Sierras has produced a very high fire threat.
And a central issue about management is how to reduce that fire threat.  So
the boundaries are drawn also to make sure that areas where prescribed
burning or controlling fires that have to be done to protect the sequoia
groves are all within the monument boundaries.

     I guess that's probably enough for Atlanta on a Friday afternoon.  And
I'm happy to take any questions.

     Q    Do you know how many timber jobs, or any jobs at all would be
lost by this?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  The only negative economic impact that we can perceive
at all -- I mean, I think there's some real positive long-term benefits
here, economic impacts -- there are two mills the are owned by the same
family.  One is in a little town called Terra Bella, south of Porterville,
down here -- and the other is up north in a town called Dinuba.  The Duysen
family with whom I have had a chance to spend some time over the last month
myself, owns both mills.  They get about half their timber supply for the
southern mill from the Sierra National Forest.  Perhaps half the two-thirds
of that would be cut off by the monument proclamation after about two and a
half or three years.

     The transition provisions in the proclamation provide about three
years, three more summers of timber supply at current levels.  The Duysens
are concerned that they might have to close their mill after three years,
the southern mill -- although they have gotten timber in the past from New
Zealand, northern California and other places.  That mill employs about 110
people, including a number of activities which are not directly related to
the mill.  It is also possible that there are a number of jobs in the
dozens probably that would be impacted to some extent by no more commercial
timber on the forest.

     It's hard to tell what the impact will be because the Sierra Nevada
forests are toward the end of a planning process which has reduced the
timber cut anyway, and will reduce it further.  So it may be that the
monument proclamation actually wouldn't be a divergence from what's
happening now, but from what's likely to happen, and then the impact would
be less.

     But if the mill were to close, I think that probably the maximum job
impact that would occur three to four years from now is in the 100-150
figure.  And we have had some discussions with them about a number of
economic mitigation, economic programs that -- to work with them.

     There is also the possibility that there will be some timber coming
off the monument because of stewardship projects, ecological restoration
projects.  One of the big public concerns about the monument right there in
the valley was that they did not want -- people did not want the same rules
that apply in the parks for fire management to apply in the forest.  They
wanted to make sure that in addition to prescribed burning, that in the
monument it would still be possible to do a certain amount of cutting,
logging -- not for commercial sale, but for ecological reasons.  The
proclamation specifically directs that.

     So the scientific committee will decide how much logging around
inholdings might be necessary to reduce fuel load, or how much -- there is
some area that's actually plantation forest in the monument that may need
to be thinned.  So just as there's some wood that comes off the park now,
downed wood that's cut and goes to the mill -- in fact, the park
superintendent thinks that there's probably almost as much board feet
coming off the park as off the forest right now -- there may be some supply
comes off the forest from those kinds of activities that would help keep
the mill open.  And the mill could buy timber from further away, so the
economics of all that are pretty unclear, but we know it's not going to
happen for three years.

     But there's no promise that there will be any amount of timber coming
off the forest after two and a half or three years from now, it's just
speculative at this point.

     Q    How much comes off it now?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  Well, this Sierra Sequoia National Forest at various
times in the '70s and '80s and early '90s produced up to 90 million board
feet of timber.  In the last couple years it's been closer to 9 million
board feet -- 9-15 million board feet.  That would likely be reduced even
if there were no monument by new rules that are being put into place for
forest management.  And if the monument, let's say, roughly decreases the
timber cut by two-thirds from this forest, then you're talking about
someplace probably between 5-10 million board feet a year, which is not a
very big amount of timber.  It's a very small amount of timber.

     But for this one particular mill, which basically takes all of this
forest timber plus some from the Tule Indian Reservation tribe, which is
this area -- conceivably, 5-8 million board feet a year could make the
difference between the mill closing and not closing.  And one can't say
that it wouldn't.  Right now there are 22 million board feet of timber
under contract, but not cut, and another 8 million that has been prepared
for sale.

     So we are supplying about 30 million board feet of transition-out
timber, and that's at least three years' supply of federal timber for this
mill, particularly.

     Q    What kind of trees are those, and were they planted for that
purpose?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  Almost nothing that's taken off this forest has been
replanted.  This forest has been pretty cut over in some places,
particularly sequoia groves have been cut over.  And so it's called white
wood -- it's fir and pine, conifer, mixed conifer, smaller logs in many
cases.  And part of the issue that originally gave rise to the whole
sequoia protection movement in the early '90s was that in the 1980s the
Forest Service started cutting in and around these groves, and big trees
that fell on sequoia trees and undermining the root structure, and so
that's a part of the history of this, the movement, the George Brown
legislation, to say, look, this is ridiculous, we're damaging sequoia
groves, we're cutting small sequoia trees, let's put this off bounds to
logging.

     Q    The difference in when you say not expected that roads would be
closed, and then later said, limit off-road vehicles -- how do you
reconcile --

     MR. FRAMPTON:  There's a pretty extensive road system on the forest.
They're all logging roads.  There is a concern that suddenly this will be a
wilderness area and gates will come down on all the roads.  That's not
going to happen.  But it is possible over time that, with a scientific
management plan, that they'll want to reduce the road system in some
places, so it's impossible to predict that every road on the forest is
going to stay open.

     The issue that I addressed is off-road vehicles -- motorcycles,
three-wheelers -- and like the other national monuments that the President
has proclaimed in many other forested areas, the proclamation provides that
off-road vehicles have to stay on designated roads.  So the management plan
itself will say which roads will stay, which will be put to bed or closed
off, and which will be appropriate for off-road vehicles.  So there will be
a limitation on off-road vehicles, on motorcycles.

     One of the controversial issues in the forest, pre-monument, is the
conflict between the Horsemen's Association and guides and outfitters who
take horseback trips, and motorcyclists on trails.  And this proclamation
would, after this summer -- there's a transition period for this summer --
but after this summer would bar motorcycles and off-road vehicles from
trails.  They would be allowed on roads, but only pursuant to what the
management plan eventually prescribes, for which roads will be appropriate
for jeeps, motorcycles, and off-road vehicles.

     Q    Could I follow up?  How about snowmobiling?  I read the
Bakersfield paper on the Internet, and they're all upset about snowmobiles,
saying that roads are closed in the wintertime, what do we do?  Will they
have designated snowmobile trails, which apparently is a huge deal?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  There will be designated -- I mean, as you can tell,
that's something of an issue right now, monument or no monument.  There
will be designated trails for snowmobiles, but snowmobiles, like other
motorized vehicles, will not have completely free run of the forest on any
small trails at any time.  There will be some management plan that is
developed to determine what's open to snowmobiles and what's not in the
wintertime.

     Q    George, I read somewhere that -- how many board feet can you get
out of one of those big giant sequoias?  I read somewhere there was enough
wood to build a house.  Is that --

     MR. FRAMPTON:  I probably should know that, and I'll find out by
tomorrow.  I mean, I suspect that one of the larger trees has got to be a
half million board feet or more.  Certainly enough to build a good-sized
house or two.

     Q    Do people actually cut those now?  I mean, you mentioned some
people were cutting small sequoias, but --

     MR. FRAMPTON:  No, you'll see -- if you're -- I don't know who is
going up there, who's not.  I guess some of you are, anyway.  You'll see
some of the small sequoia trees, which are funny-looking cone tops.  But
there is no -- there isn't a permanent prohibition right now on cutting
small sequoia trees.  There's a prohibition on cutting the big trees, which
is part of a temporary lawsuit settlement from the late '80s, and a
President Bush, George Bush, proclamation in 1992, which also could be
undone by a subsequent executive order.

     So there hasn't been any actual cutting of giant sequoia trees for the
last -- probably 25 years, on federal land.  But there was some damage to
them, and some cutting in the groves, in the mid- and late 1980s.  There is
one -- of the 75 groves, one -- one grove is still on private land.  And it
is called the Collingwood grove, and it's right up here.

     The nice thing about this map, if you're interested, is that it shows
where the groves are.  The little red things are -- all these are groves.
Those are the groves.  And the Collingwood grove is the last grove in the
world in private hands.  And I think the President will speak about that
tomorrow, because the Save the Redwoods League has an arrangement with the
owner to try to buy it, and we have asked for some of the money to do that
in our FY 2001 budget.  And so that will be part of his plug for our Lands
Legacy program, the kind of place we want to include in federal ownership.

     But remember, everything that's going into the monument is already
federal land.  So the monument does not -- there are a lot of inholdings,
there's state and private land, about 27,000 acres or 28,000 acres, of
inholdings within the monument.  And those are not included in the monument
boundary.  The Antiquities Act only allows the President to place
protection over lands that are already owned by the federal government.

     Q    Are you worried that the Republicans might try to reverse the
Antiquities Act, or amend it, to allow for more congressional consultation?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  There is legislation that has passed the House, and is
being considered in the Senate Energy Committee, that would place some
restrictions on use of the Antiquities Act, although its intent appears to
be only to require the President to consult with state and local government
and congressional delegations before doing a monument, and therefore --
we've actually gone through all the steps required, ostensibly required by
that legislation in this case.  I don't think that legislation is
necessary.

     It's interesting that even this monument, which seems very popular in
California, has encountered local opposition in the San Joaquin Valley and
some of these communities in the western side of the Sierras, which tend to
be very jealous of their uses of the forest.  And it's a reminder that
almost every monument proclamation in history has met with some local
opposition.  That's true of the creation of Grand Teton, Olympic, Grand
Canyon, Arches, Canyonlands.  C&O Canal was a national monument, very
controversial when it was proclaimed as a national monument.  But you know,
a few years later, looking back, there are very, very few of these places
that are controversial anymore.

     Q    Do you plan any improvements or educational facilities, trails --
you know, that kind of thing -- like they have in the parks for visitors?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  To some extent, that will be up to the scientific
advisory committee and the Forest Service managers and budgets.  But the
one thing that the proclamation mentions and that the Secretary of
Agriculture is going to direct the forest supervisor to do after the
proclamation is to try to have a plan for increasing educational use of the
monument, which would be not only scientific use, but kids, interpretation.
So it is possible that some trails and roads could be built to help people
get to some of these remote areas, but it would have to be done consistent
with the protection of the groves in mind.

     There are no big development plans, but I think it is possible that
certainly more trails could be developed over time if the money is
available to try to get more people into these places and help them
understand.

     A lot of these groves are off-trail or at the end of pretty long
trails.  I mean, some of them, like the parks, are right by the road, but
there are a lot of huge groves that are very seldom visited.

     Q    Isn't that sort of to the good, though?

     MR. FRAMPTON:  Well, it depends on how well they're managed.  I went
to a program the other evening -- the National Geographic had its seven
Explorers in Residence talking about the future of exploration, a
once-in-a-lifetime program.  And they all talked about conservation and
they got asked the same question -- you discover these peoples and these
mummies and these sites, and don't the exploiters come along?  I mean,
doesn't this open these places up to be ruined?  And, unanimously, they
said, look, we need to understand -- if we don't understand what's at
stake, we are not going to protect these places.  Yes, there's a risk, but
it's understanding that helps us protect them.  And if we don't understand
them, they are going to be exploited.

     So, all right.  Thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

     END  3:15 P.M. EDT