42 



We finally got a ninth circuit court injunction which was funded 

 entirely by private people's donations. But during that time, over 

 1,000 acres in the hearts of over 10 groves were logged. 



Now, the Sequoia National Forest defends itself by saying it had 

 to log out the nonsequoias so that the giants could reproduce. If 

 that is the case, why did they plant pine in those groves at 8-by- 

 8-foot spacing? 



What about the numerous 60- to 80-year-old youngsters that 

 were, by "accident," cut down after our lawsuit stopped the logging? 

 The groves were reproducing. 



My point in all of this is to say, and try to convince you, that 

 Forest Service policy is whimsical. It can change with every politi- 

 cal breeze. 



Another point is that any incentive for commodity production will 

 corrupt the very best of policies. 



And what is giant sequoia forest policy today? The only official 

 policy that has gone through the NEPA process is the 1988 forest 

 plan. It allocates 70 percent of all giant sequoia acreage to 

 nonintensive management, the pictures of the logging that I have 

 shown you. 



Now, of course, we appealed this plan. The settlement of that ap- 

 peal, which is called the mediated settlement agreement, modified 

 Sequoia's policy, so that with the exception of Converse Basin, the 

 groves are taken out of the timber base. This settlement was a 

 temporary fix. It was supposed to have been replaced by an amend- 

 ed forest plan by 1992, but that has not happened. The maximum 

 life of the settlement would be about 10 years, at which time 



Mr. Rose [resuming chair]. Let me interrupt you. Who agreed in 

 this mediated settlement to do an amended forest plsin? 



Ms. Cloer. The Forest Service. 



Mr. Rose. All right. Now, if we get the Forest Service to do an 

 amended plan, would it be proper for them to come with that as 

 a proposal, or would they just do it? Or should it be negotiated? 



Ms. Cloer, Well, sir, I think there are several factors that have 

 happened now. The mediated settlement agreement was supposed 

 to have had its provisions incorporated into a forest plan which 

 would go through public review. But because the funding was not 

 there and the scientific studies were not there to guide this amend- 

 ed forest plan, then time has marched on, and it is now obsolete. 



In my opinion, the mediated settlement agreement cannot be im- 

 plemented. First of all, we have new scientific information about 

 the California spotted owl. That means that when the mediated 

 settlement agreement allows 2,000 acres of clearcutting in the Se- 

 quoia National Forest, they can no longer do that. The mediated 

 settlement agreement allows up to, not a mandated figure but al- 

 lows up to 75 million board feet of green timber a year. Now the 

 Sequoia National Forest's own projections say that they cannot 

 take more than 28 or 30 million board feet a year. 



So there have been so many changes in scientific information 

 since that mediated settlement agreement was first struck that it 

 really would be impossible to incorporate it fully, 



I think you need to understand that the settlement agreement 

 was a temporary fix. We wanted not to have to go to court on our 

 land management plan appeal, and we negotiated without scientific 



