125 



Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 10 



What had happened to the Type I protection? The official response was, 'Some grove 

 boundaries were posted with Grove Type sign, but no groves were approved as Type I 

 by the Regional Forester. " They had no idea who had posted the hundreds of signs. 

 They told us that now there was a new designation system. It had a category for 

 preservation, but none of the logged groves were in that category. There was no law 

 prohibiting logging in the groves, no law protecting the Giant Sequoias. 



When the Type I policy changed, apparently in 1984, the only written record available 

 is an electronic mail transmittal sheet. There was no public involvement and no 

 environmental studies which preceded the decision to change policy. Even if the 

 policy had been changed in a proper manner, the following sales which allowed 

 logging in groves had Decision Notices issued prior to the new policy transmittal date 

 of 3/28/84: Red Sale(1982), Ridge 2 Sale (1982). Huckleberry Sale (1983), Eagle 

 Sale{1983), Buck Sale(1983), Gauntlet Sale(1983), Wind Sale(1984), and sales in the 

 Alder Creek Grove. 



Between August, 1986 and March, 1987, concerned citizens sent letters and petitions 

 to the Supervisor of Sequoia National Forest, James A. Crates. He agreed not to 

 approve any new projects within groves until a forest-wide Giant Sequoia 

 management plan was written, but he would not stop sales already under contract. 

 This meant that two proposed sales which would have logged in the Freeman Creek 

 Grove were stopped. However, over 457 acres (not including areas in Alder Creek 

 Grove) had already been logged in groves. Mr. Crates was reaffirming his decision to 

 log an additional 593 grove acres. Supervisor Crates' decision to not stop logging in 

 groves was appealed to the Regional Forester; the appeal was rejected as 'untimely." 

 The only recourse available was to file a lawsuit and to request an injunction. 



In the Sierra Club vs. The United States Forest Service ,we sought an injunction on 

 nine timber sales, five of which involved logging in Giant Sequoia Groves. A major 

 issue was Sequoia Forest's failure to have an Environmental Impact Statement on any 

 portion of its timber program. 



Sequoia Forest argued that the logging was actually 'grove enhancement" and was 

 being done to release the Sequoias from a buildup of nonSequoia species which 

 were causing a fire hazard and inhibiting Sequoia reproduction. However, during the 

 lawsuit discovery process, Sequoia Forest was unable to produce even a single study, 

 map, or document which indicated that the specific areas approved for logging had 

 been determined to have such conditions. There was a contradiction in their 

 contention that the logging was to enhance Sequoia reproduction because all of the 

 stand preschptksns called for planting 75 percent pine and 25 percent Sequoia at 10 

 by 10 foot spacing up to the drip line of the spared giants, creating an even-aged 

 plantation. In actuality, they were committing those grove acres to the perpetual 

 production of timber with its repeated cycle of logging, release, planting, thinning, and 

 relogging. 



80-635 -94 -5 



