Destructive logging by donkey engine. The "set" was on the ridge, upper right

Senator HUDDLESTON. Mr. Stephen Johnson, please.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOHNSON, CHATTAHOOCHEE CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, ATLANTA, GA.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am A. Stephen Johnson of Atlanta, Ga. I represent the Chattahoochee chapter of the Sierra Club, which consists of approximately 1,000 members in the States of Georgia and Alabama. I am, therefore, speaking on behalf of all the Sierra Club members in Senator Sparkman's home State.

Our chapter is part of a national organization dedicated to preservation and enjoyment of outstanding natural areas of our country, and we are, therefore, deeply concerned about the use and management of our Nation's natural resources. We are opposed to the passage of S. 1775 and S. 1996 in their present forms, because of their potential detrimental effects on our national forests. We feel that S. 1996 is the better of the two bills and contains some good points which we can support, but the overall intent of both these bills, namely to increase timber harvest in the national forests, is a concept to which we must strongly object. We feel that the national forests should continue to be maintained under the traditional multiple-use policy instituted by Congress in 1960, with certain outstanding scenic areas set aside as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. We believe that timber is already being harvested from our national forests beyond the maximum extent which is desirable. Any further increase in the rate of timbering will produce severely detrimental effects on other functions of national forests, namely, watershed protection, recreation, and esthetic and scientific values.

As an example, consider the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia. This area consists primarily of Appalachian hardwood forests, and includes most of the north Georgia highland region, an area of outstanding scenic beauty. The Chattahoochee National Forest is heavily used both by Georgians and by out-of-State tourists for recreation: camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, nature study, and scenic drives. Being a rather small area in comparison with the total area of Georgia, this region receives rather intensive recreational use, therefore, recreation is perhaps a more important use of this national forest as compared with other national forests.

At the present time, we are urging Congress to include in the national wilderness preservation system an area of 53,000 acres, the proposed Cohutta wilderness, and this proposal has the enthusiastic support of Georgians in all walks of life. There are several other Forest Service areas which have been set aside as scenic or archaeological areas, and still other areas which we believe deserve special recognition for their recreational or scientific value.

Also, the Chattahoochee National Forest includes the mountain. range which divides several major watersheds: the Chattahoochee, the Savannah, the Tennessee, and the Coosa Rivers all have their headwaters in this region, and flow from there into nearly all of the other Southeastern States. Protection of the headwaters of major streams such as these is of vital importance to insure water quality in downstream areas, and therefore watershed protection is a vital function of the Chattahoochee National Forest.

In summary, these uses of the Chattahoochee National Forest are considered so important by Georgians that timber production must play a relatively minor role in order not to be a conflicting use. We do not object to a reasonable amount of timber harvest in national forest areas not designated for special uses, but we strongly feel that any further increase in timber production would be undesirable, both from an esthetic and ecological viewpoint, and would be contrary to the purposes for which the national forests were established and the principles under which they have always been managed.

The national forests represent only a fraction of the total timberproducing lands of our country. This is particularly true in Georgia and the other Southeastern States; we have in our State many square miles of privately owned Piedmont and coastal plain land which is ideally suited for timber production, and much of it is being used as such. To insist on increasing timber production from national forests is not, we believe, a logical solution to our country's timber needs. S. 1996 has some commendable points as compared with S. 1775, encouraging timber production on privately owned lands. Sec. 104(a) (4), authorizing Federal funding of State leasing of private nonindustrial woodlands for recreational purposes, is a good idea, and is a severely needed measure in Georgia, where we have so few public recreational areas in the central and southern part of the State as compared with the needs of our population. We, therefore, would be in agreement with some points of S. 1996 if they were considered separately.

Although both these bills frequently mention such phrases as "multiple use," "protection of environmental values," and so forth, their primary aim is to increase timber production in national forests. We feel that this represents a basic conflict which could be the source of future problems resulting from differing interpretations of the bill. Perhaps clarification of certain paragraphs would be desirable to avoid future waste of time and money over disagreements.

In summary, we oppose S. 1775 and S. 1996 on the basis of their incompatibility with a sensible, well-balanced program of management of our natural resources. Instead of being the solution to a national problem, they could well be the cause of even more problems in the future. We have so little knowledge of the ecological complexities of our various types of forests that it is extremely unwise to implement any hasty, poorly researched policy directed toward a single consumptive use. We urge more careful consideration of any change in policy concerning our national forests.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

I have just a couple of questions. I think you referred consistently to the overcut that now exists in the forests. Is the basis of this overcut that they are taking more timber than the total acreage of our forestry permit or is this based on taking under incorrect management practices?

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, its more in the rate, they are taking it faster than the rate of growth.

For example, in the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California, which I didn't happen to mention here, they have a total of 13 billion feet, all sizes, ages, on commercial forest land in that forest. They have just adopted a new timber management plan that calls for

removal of 206 million board feet per year, and they say they are on a 140-year rotation under even-age management. You divide the 206 million into the 13 billion and you will see that they will sell all the timber in 62 years, leaving nothing for the remaining 58 years of their cutting cycle. The rate is therefore excessive. I am oversimplifying it, but the conclusion is correct nevertheless.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Is it your contention that even if the Forest Service has adequate numbers of competent forest managers and that they employed the best-known principles that exist or relating to forest management, that the existing number of employees working daily, diligently, couldn't take another board foot of lumber out of our forests correctly?

Mr. ROBINSON. That is a hard question to answer.

Senator HUDDLESTON. If you're taking too much now

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, I think they should reduce the cut to what can be sustained under the level of management that is now financed. The rate of growth can be increased through application of such intensive forestry measures as planting and thinning-called for in S. 775 and S. 1996. But it would be a mistake to increase the present cut. They must first retract their cut to sustained yield.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Unless this happens, unless we do have a number of existing direct procedures under the law, should not this increase the cutting?

Mr. EVANS. May I speak to that a second?

Senator HUDDLESTON. Yes.

Mr. EVANS. I think it also should be pointed out that it can't be done everyplace or many places where it is attempted to being done right now. We have many, many examples in our own experience where they have taken timber from, say rocky steep slopes and so on. It has been stated that these lands were available and they weren't There may be a burden as Gordon said, we may have to cut back there before we cut back anywhere else.

Senator HUDDLESTON. You mentioned the de facto of wilderness. Mr. EVANS. De facto wilderness is a term we use and has sort of crept into the language of issues like this which means an area of roadless land in the National Forest System or in the National Park System for that matter which has not been set aside by statute. We consider that these areas should not be logged or destroyed until a review process is complete.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you have any figures on the number of acres involved in this?

Mr. EVANS. Something like 20 million acres in Alaska, 30 or so in the lower 48 States would be in this category. This is a very frank part of the controversy right now. What is going to happen, we are all trying to figure out if we are going to use it for this use or that use or are they going to be exempted for logging or what.

Senator HUDDLESTON. I take it that it is generally accepted that a proper harvesting under the right conditions improves a forest or can improve a forest. I think everybody who has testified supports the statement. Is there such a thing-you talked about the exclusive use of certain forest for recreation and wildlife protection-is there such a thing as an imbalance in the other direction or are there areas where they are not doing enough cutting?

Mr. ROBINSON. I don't know of any. I think that it would be far preferable to selectively log the over mature timber, and in places that are not in such controversy, taking a little timber at a time over a large area instead of taking a lot from small areas. I think this is part of the problem. I know from my own experience as a forest manager that you can remove the sustained yield from a forest and actually have the forest remain attractive and intact. This is part of my testimony. The pictures are attached to this testimony, so you can see pictures of national forest as it was formerly managed. Here is a Douglasfir for example and this is the caption on that "Douglas-fir-fir or mixed conifer type. Residual stand left by company cutting under good forestry practice."

This is what the Forest said in 1950 and here is a photograph of a forest which has been cut lightly and the caption on that is "Destructive logging by donkey engine. The 'set' was on the ridge, upper right." Senator HUDDLESTON. Was that a national forest?

Mr. ROBINSON. I doubt if that was a national forest. As a means of correcting some of the difficulties with clear cutting, they put a yarding machine on the top of the hill and drag the logs up instead of pulling them downhill. Twenty years ago that was considered bad.

Senator HUDDLESTON. I ask if this is a policy, the restrictions on cutting national forests, if they are restricted and would be, say, on an individual's own property?

Mr. ROBINSON. I think they are.

Senator HUDDLESTON. If the emphasis is increased on private property, if that gets so high that it becomes desirable for a landowner to see whatever he has under his land in any condition harvested, it could be a clearcut on the forest?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes; I think it is, but I think we need legislation that will both encourage and require good management on the private land. I think the general principles incorporated in the Metcalf bill, which was argued in the last session would accomplish that. I still think those principles are appropriate so far as the private lands are concerned. I think all we have to do is have the government observe the law on the public land. I would like to tell you this, California is about to enact a forest practice act that will be approximately what would be required of the States under the Metcalf bill, not entirely but very closely.

Mr. EVANS. May I speak to that? I think it is important that the people protect the private lands too, granting that they may pay more for the lumber than its value. We don't think it has to be done with this kind of destruction. I know the Black Forest in Germany, I was there last summer and saw what seemed to me to be a very attractive logging, they got the timber, they cut in small strips, they cut with smaller machines and there are just a lot of things that you can do to keep a forest attractive like this. We think it is impossible to do this without the methods of the past that we use in this country. We have enough commercial forest land to do this.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony.

Miss Wilson, Miss Cynthia E. Wilson.