[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 30 (Thursday, March 16, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E336-E339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF DILLONWOOD GIANT SEQUOIA GROVE PARK EXPANSION ACT; AND 
       GIANT SEQUOIA GROVES PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 16, 2000

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 
preserve some of America's greatest treasures--the giant sequoias of 
central California.
  The first bill I am offering would expand the boundaries of Sequoia 
National Park. There is an area called Dillonwood Grove that includes 
one of the riches sequoia groves in the region. The private owners want 
this tract to become a part of our Park system and I support their 
right to do that. This bill would authorize the change.
  The most compelling thing about Dillonwood, however, is that this 
private property has been actively managed for many years and it offers 
us living proof to the advantages of flexible forest management. While 
Dillonwood will enter into the Sequoia National Park, it is important 
to look at the management lessons from Dillonwood, as we seek to 
protect, restore and maintain the sequoia groves outside of the Park.
  The President thinks the best way to do this by designating a 
400,000-acre national monument. I disagree.
  First, the giant sequoia in the Sequoia, Sierra and Tahoe Forests 
have been off limits to logging for over 10 years! A Mediated 
Settlement in 1990 set aside these groves to permanently ensure their 
protection. President George Bush signed a proclamation in 1992 to 
state the policy for management to be to protect, preserve and restore 
goods for giant sequoia groves in national forests. In fact, over 80% 
of the Sequoia National Forest is already off limits to logging.
  The scientists also disagree. In 1996, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 
Project said the best way to keep the forest healthy was through active 
management of the groves. They did not recommend a monument. In 
addition, the Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative has advocated a 
flexible and adaptive management strategy. A monument designation would 
undermine this kind of flexibility.
  I would like to introduce a letter into the Record from Dr. Douglas 
Piirto, a Professor of Forestry and Natural Resource Management at Cal 
Poly, in San Luis Obispo, California. He has been working on giant 
sequoia health for almost thirty years and is very concerned about how 
monument status will undermine forest management flexibility. I would 
encourage my colleagues to read his thoughtful recommendations.
  Unfortunately, the Administration has completely ignored all of these 
scientific findings. And the Forest Service has done little to 
implement them.
  Instead, what we now see is an election campaign driving forest 
policy. The campaign pollsters say we should lock it up! But this is 
not in the best interest of these sequoia groves--it is only in the 
best interest of one election campaign.
  This second bill would authorize a National Research Council study of 
the forest. They should review past studies and offer recommendations 
for exactly what kind of management will preserve these treasures. The 
National Research Council offers us some of the best independent 
scientific review in the world and I hope the Administration will 
listen to them.
  This should be about the health of the forest, not the health of an 
election campaign.
  If we really care about the future of the giant sequoia, then we will 
listen to the scientists. Campaign spin doctors and their polls cannot 
and should not try to manage a forest.

                                                    March 7, 2000.
     Re Antiquities Act and Giant Sequoia Groves: Giant Sequoia--a 
         Relic of the Past or an Icon to the Future

     Hon. William Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: I write this letter with a highest 
     degree of urgency and respect for your office. You are about 
     to make a decision that NBC states in their 2/16/2000 news 
     story could impact the long-term survival of giant sequoia 
     trees. They are right but not in the context that they say 
     it. Deciding to create a national monument for the giant 
     sequoia groves that occur on national forest lands will 
     result in the creation of places where ``relics'' of giant 
     sequoia are featured. To think that simply drawing a line 
     around a giant sequoia grove and stopping all management 
     activity is in the best interest of the long-term survival of 
     giant sequoia is incorrect. I fully disagree with any attempt 
     to put the national forest giant sequoia groves in national 
     monument status. A flexible range of management is needed 
     that cannot occur if they are designated only as national 
     monuments or national parks. I reach out to you at this time 
     with the greatest degree of humility I can muster. There is 
     no scientific justification in my opinion to designate giant 
     sequoia groves on national forest land as national monuments. 
     Our common interest is to see that they receive the best 
     stewardship possible. So, as much as we may differ on a 
     variety of issues, I need to have your attention for the next 
     few minutes as I make my case regarding the future of giant 
     sequoia groves.
       I have organized this letter into the following sections: A 
     Win/Win Solution; My Credentials, Interest, and Role in Giant 
     Sequoia Management; The Problem As I See It; Why the Need for 
     a Flexible Range of Management; What the Politics and Science 
     Tells Us; Conclusion, and Selected References from my 
     Curriculum Vitae. The recommendations presented in the Win/
     Win Section of this letter are supported and expanded upon by 
     the information that is presented in the sections which 
     follow it.
       Please refer to the figure attached at the end of this 
     letter before proceeding with reading the Win/Win Solution 
     section of this letter. They say a picture tells what a 1,000 
     words can't do. The figure of the Confederate Group in 
     Mariposa Grove illustrates what can happen to vegetation 
     within a giant sequoia grove over an 80-year period. This 
     letter makes the case that significant management flexibility 
     is needed to respond to the dramatic changes in vegetation 
     that can occur in giant sequoia groves.


                           A Win/Win Solution

       Let's first start with what I think most informed people 
     agree on: (1) Some people might debate the meanings of the 
     protect, preserve, and restore goals for national forest 
     giant sequoia groves as specified in the 1992 Presidential 
     Proclamation but most citizens would, I think, largely agree 
     with their intent; (2) some type of management area 
     designation featuring giant sequoias may be appropriate; (3) 
     the subwatershed basin containing the giant sequoia grove 
     should be the area that is specifically identified to receive 
     a specific management area designation; (4) flexible/adaptive 
     management, including fire surrogate methods (e.g., selective 
     thinning to reduce risk of catastrophic fire occurrence) is 
     needed given the many different conditions that exist in 
     national forest
       1. Expand on the 1992 Presidential Proclamation by issuing 
     a 2000 Presidential Proclamation directing the Forest Service 
     to provide protection, preservation, and restoration work to 
     the lands within the sub-watershed basin containing the giant 
     sequoia groves. Ask Congress for approval of your 
     proclamation if possible to gain a broader spectrum of 
     support. Approximately 19,345 acres exist with the tree-line 
     areas of the 38+ giant sequoia groves that occur on the 
     Sequoia National Forest. Increasing management attention to 
     the subwatersheds that contain the giant sequoia groves would 
     increase this special designation status to about 100,000 
     acres on the Sequoia National Forest. I recommend that the 
     remaining 300,000 acres be released from management area 
     special designation which would respond to concerns expressed 
     by the local forest products industry.
       2. I recommend a designation other than national monument. 
     National monument connotes to me the idea of preserving 
     relics rather than adaptively managing ecosystems. The Forest 
     Service has a large number of special designations it uses 
     for the lands under its jurisdiction. One of those 
     designations, I think, should suffice. The important thing is 
     that a subwatershed area is identified for each grove that 
     will fall under the three goals of protect, preserve, and 
     restore.
       3. The goals of protect, preserve, and restore should be 
     expanded to include the Sierra and Tahoe National Forest 
     groves.
       4. Some further refinement as to the meaning of protect, 
     preserve, and restore might be appropriate. I know they are 
     referred to in the 1992 proclamation but the wording of any

[[Page E337]]

     new proclamation must account for the current variety of 
     conditions in the Sequoia, Sierra, and Tahoe groves. Please 
     refer to the report titled ``An Ecological Foundation for 
     Management of National Forest Giant Sequoia Ecosystems'' for 
     further clarification.
       5. The role of the Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative must 
     be further defined, reinforced, and supported with staffing 
     and funding. This important body has begun to make a 
     difference but its efficiency could be improved with renewed 
     and expanded support from the President. This will insure a 
     cross-section of scientific support for the work occurring in 
     all giant sequoia groves whether within state of federal 
     jurisdiction.
       6. Some direction as to how to bring about management in 
     the 38+ national forest giant sequoia groves should be 
     included in the 2000 Presidential Proclamation. For example, 
     it would be an overwhelming task to write an EIS document for 
     each national forest giant sequoia grove. So, specific 
     direction laying out the actions necessary to move to 
     projects within national forest giant sequoia groves, I 
     think, is needed.
       7. No matter what the 2000 Presidential Proclamation 
     specifies, very little will be achieved without adequate 
     funding and staffing. Drawing a line around giant sequoia 
     groves does very little for their long-term sustainability.
       8. Provide funding for a 2002 giant sequoia symposium. The 
     Forest Service along with other agencies sponsored the highly 
     effective 1992 symposium.
       9. Finally, I think some credit must be given to the Forest 
     Service for the work they have achieved to date. We know more 
     today about national forest giant sequoia than ever before. 
     That is because of the work they and others have done. No 
     organization or agency is perfect. But the morale of an 
     organization can be severely degraded when allegations are 
     made that are not supported by science
       The information which follows provides support to this Win/
     Win solution.


     My Credentials, Interest, and Role in Giant Sequoia Management

       My name is Dr. Douglas D. Piirto. I am presently a 
     Professor of Forestry and Natural Resources Management at Cal 
     Poly, San Luis Obispo. I am a Registered Professional 
     Forester and Certified Silviculturist in California. My 
     experience with giant sequoia and coast redwood started in 
     1972 and continues to the present. I have dedicated my career 
     to furthering our knowledge about these two magnificent 
     species with a major focus on giant sequoia. My Ph.D. work at 
     UC Berkeley was focused on ``Factors Associated with Tree 
     Failure of Giant Sequoia.'' I published six papers based on 
     my Ph.D. dissertation.
       My experience with giant sequoia since completion of my 
     Ph.D. work is extensive. I have worked as a Forest Manager on 
     lands that contained giant sequoia groves. I have developed 
     giant sequoia grove management plans, completed over 
     $1,000,000 in research projects over the past 28 years 
     focused on giant sequoia, have two major giant sequoia 
     research projects ongoing, and have just finished a major 
     report for the USDA Forest Service titled ``An Ecological 
     Foundation for Management of National Forest Giant Sequoia 
     Ecosystems. I am well acquainted with almost all aspects of 
     giant sequoia management, the public issues, and scientific 
     information. For example, I annotated over 175 scientific 
     articles for the recent report I just finished for the Forest 
     Service. So, I speak with a significant amount of background 
     regarding giant sequoia that has help up to the peer review 
     process.
       Further, I was actively involved in the planning and 
     execution of the 1985 shortcourse titled Management of Giant 
     Sequoia sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and the Society 
     of American Foresters. I served as an expert witness for the 
     1991 Congressional Hearing on management of national forest 
     giant sequoia groves. I was actively involved in the planning 
     and execution of the 1992 Giant Sequoia Symposium which 
     occurred as a result of recommendations made at the 1991 
     Congressional hearing. At that same time I completed a major 
     study for the National Park Service titled Biological and 
     Management Implications of Fire Pathogen Interactions in the 
     Giant Sequoia Ecosystem.
       My current research, funded by Save the Redwoods League and 
     Sierra Forest Products focuses on evaluating vegetative 
     structure of a highly altered giant sequoia grove (e.g., 
     Converse Basin) and the Redwood Mountain Grove, a grove which 
     has only had prescribed burning. We are obtaining some 
     fascinating management oriented results from this study.
       I present my comments, opinions and recommendation in this 
     letter as a Cal Poly representative to the Giant Sequoia 
     Ecology Cooperative, a group of managers and managers focused 
     on linking science to management policies. The points I make 
     in this letter are based on years of experience and 
     interaction with many learned individuals. The comments I 
     make should only be construed as my point of view and not 
     that of the collective body of Cal Poly or of the Giant 
     Sequoia Ecology Cooperative. However, having now said that, 
     my opinions presented here are widely supported particularly 
     my views on the need for an adaptive, flexible management 
     strategy that is focused on the subwatersheds containing 
     giant sequoia groves. Please refer to the Congressional 
     Testimony I presented in 1991 that specifically outlines my 
     views as to the need for a flexible management policy. Also 
     refer to the McKinley Grove Environmental Assessment that I 
     helped prepare in 1978. In that EA, I recommended that the


                        The Problem As I See It

       Considerable discussion has and is occurring as to how to 
     best protect naturally occurring giant sequoia groves. It is 
     my opinion that the issue should rather focus on how to 
     manage giant sequoia groves. However, defining what 
     constitutes ``best'' management is not an easy matter and is 
     subject to interpretation by various concerned individuals 
     and organizations. I made this statement in my testimony to 
     the 1991 Congressional Hearing on management of giant sequoia 
     groves.
       The 1991 Congressional Hearing led to several positive 
     outcomes: 1.) the 1992 Giant Sequoia symposium; 2.) increased 
     USDA Forest Service funding to located boundaries and 
     inventory national forest giant sequoia groves; 3.) increased 
     research activity on giant sequoia; 4.) 1992 Presidential 
     Proclamation; 5.) development of a Giant Sequoia Ecology 
     Cooperative which advises all organizations that have a 
     responsibility for managing giant sequoia groves; and 6.) 
     development of an ecological foundation report for management 
     of national forest giant sequoia ecosystems. We didn't 
     precisely know in 1990 where national forest giant sequoia 
     groves began and ended. We do now because the 1989 Mediated 
     Settlement followed by the 1992 Presidential Proclamation 
     focused our attention on three objectives: protect, preserve, 
     restore. And, increased funding led to our accurately 
     locating the boundaries of all giant sequoia groves buffer 
     zones, and subwatersheds. And more recently we have 
     identified fire influence zones for several of the national 
     forest giant sequoia groves. So to say that very little has 
     occurred regarding national forest giant sequoia groves is a 
     gross misstatement.
       Drawing lines to exclude certain management activities is 
     not what we as a society must focus on. Rather we must center 
     our attention on flexible management strategies that 
     accommodate the variety of stand conditions which exist 
     within the proposed 400,000 acre national monument for 
     national forest giant sequoia groves. As far as I can tell 
     the actual acreage of national forest giant sequoia groves is 
     something less than 19,345 acres. So, I wonder why it is 
     necessary to reserve from use some 400,000 acres of land. 
     Admittedly there are watershed and fire influence concerns 
     which must be addressed but those areas outside the actual 
     treeline areas of giant sequoia groves can be managed in such 
     a fashion that both allows use and reduced risk of 
     catastrophic fire or watershed events occurring within the 
     giant sequoia groves.
       And to think that one form of management is in the best 
     interest of all the national forest giant sequoia groves 
     fails to realize that there are significant differences in 
     the composition and structure of the 38 national forest 
     sequoia groves on the Sequoia National Forest. Converse 
     Basin, for example when it was privately owned was 
     extensively logged some 100 years ago. There have been two 
     very large wildland fires that have also affected the 
     Converse Basin grove as well. The structure and composition 
     of the Converse Basin grove is thus much different from a 
     grove that has not had this disturbance history. Thus it 
     follows that our management approach for Converse Basin would 
     by necessity be different from other less disturbed groves. 
     Will establishing a national monument allow for this range of 
     management flexibility? I think not. We must rise to higher 
     level as we focus our attention on what is best management 
     for national forest giant sequoia groves.


            Why the Need for a Flexible Range of Management

       Agencies are moving forward with management activities 
     trying to ``learn as they go'' as to what works and doesn't 
     work. For example, the California Department of Forestry and 
     Fire Protection employs uneven-aged forest management 
     practices (e.g., selective cutting) and prescribed burning to 
     meet management objectives for the Mountain Home grove of 
     giant sequoias. The USDI National Park Service employs 
     prescribed burning focusing on fuel reduction. The USDA 
     Forest Service was using both even and uneven-aged forest 
     management followed by prescribed burning practices in 
     several of the giant sequoia groves on the Tahoe, Sierra, and 
     Sequoia National Forest in the 1970s and 1980s. The Forest 
     Service has imposed a moratorium around 1988 on management 
     projects in national forest giant sequoia groves until more 
     is learned about them (e.g., inventories) and until a Land 
     Management Plan Amendment can be developed and approved. The 
     California Department of Parks and Recreation which manages 
     Calaveras Bigtrees State Park employs primarily prescribed 
     burning practices to meet management objectives. The Bureau 
     of Land Management has recently launched a program to 
     inventory attributes of the Case Mountain giant sequoia 
     grove. But aside from custodial protection, BLM is not 
     aggressively managing the Case Mountain

[[Page E338]]

     grove until it evaluates a suitable management strategy. The 
     managers of the Tule River Indian Reservation employ uneven 
     management of the giant sequoia lands that occur there. The 
     range of management approaches varies from timber management 
     followed by prescribed burning to only prescribed burning to 
     custodial management to let's wait and inventory what we have 
     at this time. Which approach is correct?
       A few long-term studies have been done focused on 
     management strategies for giant sequoia groves. The USDI 
     National Park Service has done work on prescribed burning but 
     not in comparison to its effectiveness to silvicultural 
     management strategies. To say that prescribed burning for 
     fuel reduction is the only safe course of action for all 
     giant sequoia groves is inappropriate because it is an 
     opinion based on limited research information. We really do 
     not know if prescribed burning alone is the best course of 
     action for the long-term survival and perpetuation of the 
     giant sequoia species. Prescribed burning has both positive 
     and negative effects on the giant sequoia ecosystems.
       Understanding that prescribed burning is not without its 
     negative consequences, some foresters employed a variety of 
     silvicultural methods to achieve desired management 
     objectives. Silvicultural manipulation (e.g., tree removal) 
     has both positive and negative consequences as does 
     prescribed burning. Competing whitewood trees are either 
     partially or totally removed from small areas of the larger 
     giant sequoia groves to reduce fuel levels, reduce 
     competition, and create seedbed conditions that enable giant 
     sequoia to become established, survive, and grow. Very few 
     young-growth stands of giant sequoia exist in California. The 
     ones that do exist developed as a result of past site 
     disturbances. Silvicultural manipulation of giant sequoia 
     groves and adjacent areas can actually increase the amount of 
     area occupied by young, healthy giant sequoia trees.
       The decision as to what is the most appropriate course of 
     action to take with reference to the management of giant 
     sequoia is not an easy one to make given these uncertainties. 
     However, it seems inappropriate to put all of the giant 
     sequoia grove areas under the same form of management. 
     Placing the 41+/- giant sequoia groves on the Sequoia, 
     Sierra, and Tahoe National Forests into a national monument 
     status reduces to a significant degree management 
     flexibility. Management flexibility is needed as we learn 
     more about effective approaches. National monument status 
     will insure custodial protection but will this designation 
     ultimately lead to healthy ecosystems and perpetuation of the 
     giant sequoia species? Do we really have enough information 
     to suggest that only national park or national monument 
     status will result in ``best''


                 What the Politics and Science Tells Us

       So who's right? What course of action should we as a nation 
     take at this point in time? What have we learned from what 
     research and management activities that have been undertaken? 
     The lessons learned as I see them are:
       1. There continues to be significant interest in the giant 
     sequoia resource as there well should be. Yet this interest 
     and concern is not supported by adequate funding to do 
     research and carry out management in an orderly and planned 
     manner.
       2. Organizations and agencies involved with giant sequoia 
     management have varied opinions as to what is the most 
     appropriate course of action to follow.
       3. More comparative research is needed to evaluate 
     management approaches for giant sequoia ecosystems.
       4. Significant site disturbance is needed to obtain giant 
     sequoia seedling establishment and survival. Mineral soil 
     conditions favor seedling establishment and canopy openings 
     facilitate growth and survival of established seedling.
       5. Thrifty young-growth stands of giant sequoia are not 
     widespread with its native range.
       6. Fire suppression over the past 90 years has resulted in 
     significant stand density increases of associated tree 
     species found in giant sequoia groves. These changes in stand 
     density are also influencing pathogen and insect 
     relationships in the grove areas.
       7. Both prescribed burning and silvicultural manipulation 
     of giant sequoia groves have positive and negative effects 
     which are not fully understood. for example, researchers have 
     measured lethal temperatures at significant depths beneath 
     the bark of old-growth giant sequoia trees during prescribed 
     burning operations.
       8. Custodial protection without some form of prescribed 
     burning and/or silvicultural manipulation is probably not in 
     the best interest for perpetuating the species
       9. Giant sequoia trees are subject to the same natural 
     forces and man-caused influences as other tree species. 
     Specimen giant sequoia trees have fallen within the 
     boundaries of National Parks, State Parks, State Forests, 
     National Forests, and on private lands. Various factors are 
     involved. And in some cases human activities have probably 
     contributed to premature failure in all of these 
     governmentally protected and managed areas. It is not known 
     whether or not the present rate of old-growth giant sequoia 
     tree failures is higher than historic patterns.
       10. Both prescribed burning and silvicultural manipulation 
     of giant sequoia groves have received adverse public 
     criticism. It seems that no one agency is doing a perfect job 
     of giant sequoia management. However, Mountain Home State 
     Forest might come closest if we were to judge performance on 
     the amount of public criticism expressed and publicity 
     received. But the Jury is still out as to what management 
     approaches are most effective for perpetuation of the 
     ecosystem and the giant sequoia species.
       11. Giant sequoia groves have and are affected by a wide 
     range of disturbance events. We understand that some 
     proportion of a giant sequoia landscape should be comprised 
     of early stage vegetation so that sustainability and the 
     overall health of the grove is maintained.


                               Conclusion

       Management by necessity must involve more than custodial 
     protection. And it can't simply focus on changing 
     jurisdictional authorities. Management must be continuous as 
     the ecosystems within which giant sequoia occurs are dynamic. 
     Given these three premises, I make a number of 
     recommendations as shown in the Win/Win solution section of 
     this letter.
       Changing jurisdictional authorities is not the answer. 
     Education and research continue to be needed on giant 
     sequoia. Positive change will occur as we learn more about 
     this most magnificent tree species and ecosystem. I truly 
     believe that the giant sequoia groves are not relics of the 
     past. They should not receive protective regulations that 
     treat them as such. Drawing a circle around the giant sequoia 
     groves and calling them national monuments seems to infer 
     ``relic'' status. Flexible management strategies with 
     restrictions on the extent of management activity that can 
     occur at any one time seems to be, in my opinion, the better 
     approach to insure the perpetuation of the giant sequoia 
     species and the ecosystems within which they occur. Please 
     refer you to the Win/Win Solution section at the beginning of 
     this letter for more specifies as to the recommendations I 
     offer.
       Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my 
     opinions on giant sequoia. I list in the following section 
     selected publications, technical reports, and invited 
     presentations in support of my credentials to express an 
     authoritative opinion on the pending proposal to establish a 
     national monument for national forest giant sequoia groves.


                          Selected References

       I list only peer reviewed publications, technical reports, 
     and papers I have delivered that are focused on giant 
     sequoia. A complete listing of all my publications and 
     presentations appears in my current Curriculum Vitae which is 
     available upon request.
     Peer reviewed publications
       Piirto, D.D., and R. Rogers. 1999. An ecological foundation 
     for management of giant sequioa groves. USDA Forest Service, 
     Pacific Southwest Region, Sequoia National Forest R5-EM-TP-
     005 (peer reviewed).
       Piirto, D.D. and R. Rogers. 1999. An ecological foundation 
     for management of national forest giant sequoia groves. In: 
     Transactions for the 1999 North American Wildlife and Natural 
     Resources conference. Wildlife Management Institute (peer 
     reviewed).
       Piirto, D.D., J.R. Parmeter Jr., F. W. Cobb Jr., K.L. 
     Piper, A.C. Workinger, and W.J. Otrosina. 1998. Biological 
     and management implications of firepathogen interactions in 
     the giant sequoia ecosystem. Pages 325-336 in Teresa L. 
     Pruden and Leonard A. Brennan (eds.). Fire in ecosystem 
     management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to 
     prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 
     Proceedings, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, 
     Tallahassee, FL. (peer reviewed)
       Piirto, D.D., Robert R. Rogers, and Mary Chislock Bethke. 
     1997. Communicating the role of science in the management of 
     giant sequoia groves. In: Proceedings for the National 
     Silviculture Workshop, May 19-22, 1997.
       Piirto, D.D., R. Thompson and K. Piper. 1997. Implementing 
     Uneven-aged redwood management at Cal Poly's School Forest. 
     In: Proceedings of the Conference on Coast Redwood Forest 
     Ecology and Management, June 18-20, 1996. p. 78-82.
       Piirto, D.D. 1994. Giant Sequoia Insect, Disease and 
     Ecosystem Interactions. In Proceedings for the Symposium on 
     Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. 
     June 23-25, 1992. Visalia, California (peer reviewed).
       Weatherspoon, C.P., Y.R. Iwamoto, and D.D. Piirto. 
     (Technical Compilers). 1987. Proceedings of the Workshop on 
     Management of Giant Sequoia. May 24-25, 1985. Reedley, CA. 
     USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-95.
       Piirto, D.D., J. Hawksworth and M. Hawksworth. 1986. Giant 
     Sequoia Sprouts. Journal of Forestry. 84(9) 24-25 (peer 
     reviewed).
       Piirto, D.D. 1986. Wood Properties and Unique 
     Characteristics of Giant Sequoia. In Proceedings of SAF's 
     Management of Giant Sequoia workshop. USDA Forest Service 
     Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-95.
       Piirto, D.D., J.R. Parmeter and W. Wayne Wilcox. 1984. 
     Basidiomycete Fungi Reportedly Associated with Living or Dead 
     Giant

[[Page E339]]

     Sequoia and Coast Redwood. Univ. of California, Berkeley. 
     Forestry and Forest Products. Dept. of Forestry, Forest 
     Products Laboratory, California, Agricultural Experiment 
     Station. No. 55-April.
       Piirto, D.D., W. Wayne Wilcox, John R. Parmeter, David L. 
     Wood. 1984. Causes of Uprooting and Breakage of Specimen 
     Giant Sequoia Trees. Division of Agricultural and Natural 
     Resources, Univ. of California. Bulletin 1909.
       Piirto, D.D. and W. Wayne Wilcox, 1981. Comparative 
     Properties of Old-Growth and Young-Growth Giant Sequoia of 
     Potential Significance to Wood Utilization. Division of 
     Agricultural Sciences, Univ. of California. Bulletin 1901.
       Piirto, D.D. and W. Wayne Wilcox. 1978. Critical Evaluation 
     of the Pulsed-Current Resistance Meter for Detection of Decay 
     in Wood. Forest Products Journal 28 (1) 52-56 (peer 
     reviewed).
       Piirto, D.D., J.R. Parimeter and W. Wayne Wilcox. 1977. 
     Poria incrassata in Giant Sequoia. Plant Disease Reporter 61 
     (1) 50 (peer reviewed).
       Wilcox, W.W. and D.D. Piirto. 1976. Decay Resistance in 
     Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Heartwood as Related to Color 
     and Extractives. Wood and Fiber 7 (4) (peer reviewed).
       Piirto, D.D., J.R. Parmeter and F.W. Cobb Jr. 1974. Fomes 
     annosus in Giant Sequoia. Plant Disease Reporter 58 (5) 478 
     (peer reviewed).
     Technical reports
       Piirto, Douglas D. 1996. A Critical Review of the Kings 
     River Administrative Study (KRAS) Landscape Analysis Plan. 
     USDA Forest Service. Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA.
       Piirto, Douglas D. 1996. Reference Variability for Giant 
     Sequoia--An Annotated Review of Literature. Final Report. 
     USDA Forest Service. Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, 
     CA.
       Piirto, D.D., K. Piper and J.R. Parmeter, Jr. 1992. Final 
     Report. Biological and Management Implications of Fire/
     Pathogen Interactions in the Giant Sequoia Ecosystem; Part 
     I--Fire Scar/Pathogen Studies, Part II--Pathogenicity 
     Studies. Natural Resources Management Department, Cal Poly-
     San Luis Obispo.
       Piirto, D.D. 1980. Environmental Assessment Report and 
     Stand Management Prescription for McKinley Grove. USDA Forest 
     Service, Sierra NF, Kings River RD.
       Piirto, D.D. 1978. Guidelines and Action Plan for 
     Management of McKinley Grove. USDA Forest Service, Sierra NF, 
     Kings River RD.
       Piirto, D.D. 1977. Final Report to the National Park 
     Service on Structural Failure of Giant Sequoia. U.C. Forest 
     Products Laboratory, Berkeley.
     Presentations
       Piirto, D.D. and R. Rogers. 1999. An ecological foundation 
     for management of national forest giant sequoia groves. 
     Presented at the 1999 Save-the-Redwoods League annual 
     business meeting at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park. 
     September, 1999.
       Piirto, D.D., R. Rogers, M. Chislock-Bethke and T. Henry. 
     An ecological foundation for management of national forest 
     giant sequoia groves. A poster presentation at the 1999 
     National Convention of the Society of American Foresters in 
     Portland, Oregon. The poster display was awarded second place 
     out of 110 submitted posters.
       Piirto, D.D. and R. Rogers. 1999. An ecological foundation 
     for management of national forest giant sequoia groves. 
     Presented at the 1999 Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative 
     meeting held at Calaveras State Park. May, 1999.
       Piirto, D.D. and R. Rogers. 1999. Developing an ecological 
     foundation for management of national forest giant sequoia 
     groves. Paper presented at the April North American Wildlife 
     and Natural Resources conference. Wildlife Mgmt. Institute.
       Piirto, D.D. 1997. Converse Basin, its past, present and 
     its future. Paper to USDA Forest Service. Deputy Regional 
     Forester's Meeting held at Hume Lake, CA.
       Piirto, D.D. 1997. Special presentation to Dr. Jerry 
     Franklin's University of Washington Ecosystem Management 
     Field Tour class. I presented a talk and led a field tour 
     focused on implementing ecosystem management in Converse 
     Basin.
       Piirto, D.D. 1997. Implementing ecosystem management in a 
     State Park setting. Paper presented at California Park Ranger 
     Conference. San Luis Obispo, CA.
       Piirto, D.D. 1992. Disease and Insects Associated with 
     Giant Sequoia. A paper presented at the symposium titled 
     Giant Sequoias, Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society on 
     June 23, 1992 in Visalia, CA.
       Piirto, D.D. 1991. Giant Sequoia Groves, A Relic to be 
     Preserved or A Resource to be Managed. Testimony and paper 
     submitted at the Congressional Hearings of the Committee on 
     Interior and Insular Affairs on September 4, 1991. Visalia, 
     CA.
       Piirto, D.D. and K. Piper. 1991. Biological and Management 
     Implications of Fire/Pathogen Interactions in the Giant 
     Sequoia Ecosystem. A poster presentations at Fourth Biennial 
     Conference of Research in California's National Parks, Davis, 
     CA.
       Piirto, D.D. J.R. Parmeter, Jr., F.W. Cobb, Jr., K. Piper, 
     and A. Workinger, 1991. Biological and Management 
     Implications of Fire/Pathogen Interactions in the Giant 
     Sequoia Ecosystem. A poster presentation at the 1991 National 
     Convention of the Society of American Foresters in San 
     Francisco, CA.
       Piirto, D.D. J.R. Parmeter, Jr., F.W. Cobb, Jr., K. Piper, 
     and A. Workinger, 1991. Biological and Management 
     Implications of Fire/Pathogen Interactions in the Giant 
     Sequoia Ecosystem--A Progress Report. A paper presented at 
     the Fourth Biennial Conference of Research in California's 
     National Parks. Davis, CA.
       Piirto, D.D. 1985. Wood Properties and Unique 
     Characteristics of Giant Sequoia. Presented at the SAF 
     Management and Giant Sequoia shortcourse at Kings River 
     Community College, Reedley, CA. May 24, 1985.
       Piirto, D.D. 1976. Factors Associated with Tree Failure of 
     Giant Sequoia. Presented at the First Conference on 
     Scientific Research in National parks. New Orleans, 
     Louisiana. November 1976.
       Piirto, D.D. 1976. Factors Associated with Tree Failure of 
     Giant Sequoia. A poster exhibit presented in Mulford Hall 
     Forestry Library Fall 1976.
       Piirto, D.D. Structural Failure of Giant Sequoia. Presented 
     at the Third North American Forest Biology Workshop. Colorado 
     State University, Fort Collins, CO.
                                    Douglas D. Piirto. Ph.D., RPF,
           Professor of Forestry and Natural Resources Management.

     

                          ____________________