[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.

____________________