138 



The CASPO report concluded that the existing practice of the Forest 

 Service "is not a workable strategy to assure long-term maintenance of spotted 

 owls." CASPO at 15. Furthermore, the Court noted that the CASPO report 

 recommended that the silvicultural practices of the last 100 years be inverted. 



In efifect, the approach recommended here tends to invert 

 silvicultural practices of the last 100 years. What has been 

 characterized as "top down" logging (concentrating on the 

 largest trees) would become primarily a "bottom up" approach 

 (leaving the largest trees and concentrating on the smaller 

 trees). CASPO at 24. 



The reason why the Forest Service disregarded the new significaht 

 information is because' the CASPO report concluded that trees over 30" in 

 diameter in Sequoia National Forest should not be harvested and the Forest 

 Service wanted to continue its policies permitting clear cutting and the selective 

 harvesting of the biggest trees. Fortunately, the Court did not agree with the 

 Forest Service and stated that "an approach which 'tends to invert silvicultural 

 practices of the last 100 years is significant" and ordered the preparation of 

 supplemental environmental impact statements. 



It is noteworthy that the conclusions of the Court are not the activism 

 of a "liberal" judge. The Honorable Oliver Wanger was appointed by George Bush. 

 The conclusion of the Coxirt, in a 48 page opinion, reflects a thorough review of the 

 record and an application of federal law. Judge Wanger was extremely well 

 prepared when our opposing counsel (six attorneys, including representatives of 

 the U.S. Attorney's OflEice, the Forest Service and the Timber Industry) and I 

 presented our arguments at a day long hearing. The Judge knew the record, had 

 reviewed the pleadings and asked keen questions. 



Some of the evidence is particularly pertinent to this hearing because 

 is shows the mismanagement of Sequoia National Forest by the Forest Service. 

 For one example, the Forest Service's own maps were presented which declared 

 a portion of Forest to be core "foraging habitat" for the California Spotted Owl in 

 1991. Within one year, the Forest Service redrew its maps to allow clearcuts in 

 the (previously) acknowledged foraging habitat area. 



The Forest Service simply has not made a genuine effort to do its job. 

 It is with good reason that the CASPO Committee has recommended that no trees 

 over 30" in diameter be cut. It is recognized that after 100 years of clear cutting 

 and selectively cutting the largest trees immediate preservation measures are 

 needed to protect old growth dependent species such as the California Spotted Owl 

 and to preserve the forest ecosystem for the Giant Sequoia Groves. 



There are numerous other sales in the Sequoia that are ripe for 

 litigation because the Forest Service has not done its job and new scientific 

 information is being ignored. Litigation will continue until the Forest Service does 

 its job in a genuine manner and in accordance with law. But there is a better way 

 than litigation - and that is the passage of the Sequoia Preservation Bill. The 

 Forest Service's own experts have abready concluded that tree's over 30" 



