Giant Sequoia Scientific Advisory Board October 31 – November 1, 2001 Appendix to Meeting Minutes Appendix E Handouts from Doug Piirto Scientific Advisory Board Member 10/30/01 Converse Basin, A Research/Demonstration Area This draft outline statement was prepared by Dr. Douglas D. Piirto for review by the Giant Sequoia National Monument Science Advisory Board at its October 31, 2001 meeting. Issue: Should the Converse Basin be used as a “research/demonstration area”? Facts: •The Converse Basin Grove is the largest grove within the Giant Sequoia National Monument. It comprises an area of approximately 4,327 acres including the mandated Mediated Settlement Agreement buffer zone. The Ecological Unit Inventory that was completed in 1996 surveyed a larger area of approximately 7,745 acres that included the Converse Basin area and the adjacent McGee Canyon area •This basin and canyon area are both tributary to the Kings River. It is known as an area of extremely high relief with elevations ranging from 4,100 feet in the bottom of McGee Canyon to 7,200 feet at the top of Converse Mountain. •Several major drainages exist within the area including: Mill Flat Creek, Converse Creek, Verplank Creek, and Cabin Creek. •Special features in Converse Basin worth noting include: 1.) Chicago Stump; 2.) D21 stump near the Chicago stump that was dated by Andrew Douglas sometime between 1914 and 1930; 3.) Muir snag; 4.) Telescope snag; 5.) Log trestle; 6.) Boole tree; 7.) Rob Roy Hoist site; 8.) Rock Hoist site; 9.) The live telescope tree reported to occur somewhere in Converse Basin; 10.) Ellsworth Huntington stump; 11.) Converse Basin Mill site, and. other important features too numerous to list here. •The area has a long history of natural and human disturbances. •The grove was privately owned and heavily logged in the 1890’s and early 1900’s. •Two major somewhat catastrophic wildland fires (i.e., 1928 Converse Fire and the 1955 McGee Fire) burned through Converse Basin, which significantly affected the varied existing vegetation mosaic we see today. •These past disturbance events resulted in numerous federal actions to restore the burned areas and past heavily logged areas of Converse Basin. For example, several plantations of mostly ponderosa pine were established in heavily burned areas affected by the McGee Fire. •Today, most areas of Converse Basin contain a densely stocked, 80 to 100 year-old, and second-growth mixed conifer forest with plantations scattered throughout the forest. •A few pockets of old-growth trees remain within Converse Basin including the: Boole tree, Cabin Creek Grove, and several large trees on the Kings River Canyon rim west of Stump Meadow. •The USDA Forest Service acquired control of this area after the private logging had occurred. 1 10/30/01 Ecological Transfer Effects This draft outline statement was prepared by Dr. Douglas D. Piirto for review by the Giant Sequoia National Monument Science Advisory Board at its October 31, 2001 meeting. Issue: Should the Forest Service consider “ecological transfer effects” from not using timber removed from the monument? Facts: •Market demand for timber is relatively inelastic. •If one doesn’t log in one area, one logs somewhere else. A recent story by William Keye in the Sacramento Bee states: “U.S. lumber consumption has increased by 16%. Most of that demand, and its environmental impacts, has been transferred to lands outside the United States.” •Third world countries many of which contain tropical forests will be impacted by our decisions to not log California public forests. Libby (1992) states preservation of only 100 acres of Sierra Nevada forest will hasten the extinction of one species somewhere in the world given that timber harvest will have to occur elsewhere to meet public demands for wood. •Concern already has been expressed that the southern United States which is referred to as the nation’s “wood basket” is cutting more than it is growing to meet, in part, the demand formerly met by timber harvest of California public commercial forestlands. •Over the last decade, 59 lumber mills have been closed in California due to a lack of sustained supplies of timber for sale. •One lumber mill in the southern San Joaquin valley closed specifically in response to the formation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Reason: no assurance of a timber log market. •Over 90% of the allowed timber harvest for the Sequoia National Forest prior to 2000 came from the land area that is now called the Giant Sequoia National Monument. •Current forest growth rates for the Giant Sequoia National Monument are between 1.5 to 2 percent per year. That means that within the next 10 years there will be between 15 to 20 percent more living softwood tree biomass. •With timber harvest levels slashed by 51% in the past decade, 70% of our wood fiber is now brought in from other states and nations (Sacramento Bee 2001). •Significant public concern has been expressed about the selected alternative (Modified Alternative 8) displayed in the Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Quoting a recent report by the National Association of Forest Service Retirees 2001): “We believe that the decision will probably not sustain the forest resources, especially the old forests and associated wildlife habitats, of the Sierra Nevada, largely as a result of the inability to provide 10/30/01 Ecological Transfer Effects This draft outline statement was prepared by Dr. Douglas D. Piirto for review by the Giant Sequoia National Monument Science Advisory Board at its October 31, 2001 meeting. Issue: Should the Forest Service consider “ecological transfer effects” from not using timber removed from the monument? Facts: •Market demand for timber is relatively inelastic. •If one doesn’t log in one area, one logs somewhere else. A recent story by William Keye in the Sacramento Bee states: “U.S. lumber consumption has increased by 16%. Most of that demand, and its environmental impacts, has been transferred to lands outside the United States.” •Third world countries many of which contain tropical forests will be impacted by our decisions to not log California public forests. Libby (1992) states preservation of only 100 acres of Sierra Nevada forest will hasten the extinction of one species somewhere in the world given that timber harvest will have to occur elsewhere to meet public demands for wood. •Concern already has been expressed that the southern United States which is referred to as the nation’s “wood basket” is cutting more than it is growing to meet, in part, the demand formerly met by timber harvest of California public commercial forestlands. •Over the last decade, 59 lumber mills have been closed in California due to a lack of sustained supplies of timber for sale. •One lumber mill in the southern San Joaquin valley closed specifically in response to the formation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Reason: no assurance of a timber log market. •Over 90% of the allowed timber harvest for the Sequoia National Forest prior to 2000 came from the land area that is now called the Giant Sequoia National Monument. •Current forest growth rates for the Giant Sequoia National Monument are between 1.5 to 2 percent per year. That means that within the next 10 years there will be between 15 to 20 percent more living softwood tree biomass. •With timber harvest levels slashed by 51% in the past decade, 70% of our wood fiber is now brought in from other states and nations (Sacramento Bee 2001). •Significant public concern has been expressed about the selected alternative (Modified Alternative 8) displayed in the Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Quoting a recent report by the National Association of Forest Service Retirees 2001): “We believe that the decision will probably not sustain the forest resources, especially the old forests and associated wildlife habitats, of the Sierra Nevada, largely as a result of the inability to provide 10/30/01 adequate fuels management, the lack of provisions for regeneration, and the inability to fully implement the decision.” Management Implications: There is little doubt that demand for wood will not decrease. Using wood to meet our needs is the most environmentally friendly thing we can do given that using any other non-renewable alternatives (e.g., steel, concrete) consumes up to nine times more energy and is permanently destructive to the environment (Koch 1992, Libby 1992, Moore 2001). Substantial public concern exists about the sustainability of preservation-oriented alternatives in achieving sound resource management objectives. Advice: The Forest Service (i.e., Sequoia National Forest and the Giant Sequoia National Monument) must clearly come to grips with this ethical dilemma of not meeting, in part, its fair share of the nation’s timber supply needs. The Environmental Impact Statement must clearly evaluate for the citizen’s of the United States the tradeoffs that have been sacrificed and the effects that other areas will feel should no aspect for the timber supply issue be fully addressed in management actions for the Giant Sequoia National Monument. The size of the Giant Sequoia National Monument should be evaluated in relation to: 1.) The availability of public funds to manage the Giant Sequoia National Monument and 2.) The larger national timber supply problem. References: •Koch, P. 1992. Wood versus nonwood materials in U.S. residential construction: some energy-related global implications. Forest Products Journal 42:31-42. •Libby, W. J. 1992. Managing Some Consequences of Giant Sequoia Management. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-151. •Moore, P. 2001.