126 



Cloer-Testimony: H.R. 2153 Page 1 1 



Why did they do this? Possibly some personnel actually believed that the logging 

 would help the groves; however, an interview with former Regional Forester, Zane G. 

 Smith. Jr., now retired, indicates that Sequoia Forest was under the gun to meet 

 inflated logging volumes. Logging in the groves was the result of tremendous 

 budgetary and other incentives to maximize the cut and to turn a blind eye to other 

 resource values. Giant Sequoias typically occupy the better timber growing sites so 

 there were some valuable old-growth nonSequoia trees harbored in the groves. 

 About this same time Sequoia Forest initiated clearcuts in other sensitive areas such 

 as important viewsheds and very steep slopes. 



Conservation groups were convinced that any Sequoia seedling that might become 

 established after logging would be logged during the next re-entry, in the Converse 

 Basin, where there was once the largest grove of Giant Sequoias known in the Sierra 

 Nevada before the turn-of-the-century logging, natural restoration was occurring. 

 Sequoias which had germinated from the natural seed bed had grown to considerable 

 size, up to 6 feet in diameter. However, in the Cabin Sale, 1985. not only were non- 

 Sequoia trees logged, but the Sequoias that were replacements for their logged 

 ancestors were also cut. Sequoia Forest explained that these trees were 'second 

 growth" and therefore did not qualify for sparing. By the same logic, any Sequoia tree 

 which was established after the more recent logging could also be defined as 'second 

 growth" and be logged. 



Experts found that the type of logging occurring in the groves could cause significant 

 environmental impacts. While waiting for the judge to rule, logging continued in the 

 groves. Local citizens watched as survey stakes were replaced by bulldozed roads 

 and then as every living thing was removed from the units except for the largest Giants. 



About 16 months after the lawsuit was filed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted 

 us an injunction. The case was won, not because it was illegal to log in groves, but 

 because of the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement. Because of court delays, 

 only four units in groves were saved; two in the Peyrone Grove and two in the Red Hill 

 Grove. 



Even after the injunction was in place stopping the projects, Sequoia Forest continued 

 with the site preparation and planting. During the course of site preparation, many 

 smaller Giant Sequoias, up to 8 inches in diameter ( up to 60 years old) were 

 •accidentally" cut, piled, and burned. These young stumps are evidence that the 

 grove was indeed regenerating itself before the treatment," and evidence that young 

 Sequoia reproduction was not a prk^rity to Sequoia Forest. 



While the contract provided for penalties for damaging any specimen Sequoia, 

 Sequoia Forest did not penalize the industry for cutting these trees. 



Although we had sent the message loud and clear that Sequoia groves were special 



