The Sequoia Forest Plan Settlement Agreement as It Affects
Sequoiadendron giganteum: A Giant Step in the Right Direction1
Julie E. McDonald2
Abstract: Due to agitation, litigation, and prolonged mediation instigated
by environmentalists, the Giant Sequoia groves of the Sequoia National
Forest have been declared by the Sequoia National Forest to be a "unique
national treasure." There will be no commercial logging within the groves,
and the Forest will over time prepare a management plan for each grove
aimed at restoration and regeneration.
A lawsuit over Forest Service logging in Giant Sequoia
groves, and much outcry over the Sequoia National Forest
Plan to commit most Giant Sequoia groves to logging operations, spurred the Forest Service to change its Giant Sequoia
management policy quite dramatically. Under the Forest
Plan Settlement Agreement, which was signed by a diverse
range of parties, Giant Sequoia groves will be preserved at
least for the next decade "as a unique national treasure."
The Agreement contains lengthy details on how Giant
Sequoia grove boundaries and buffer zones will be established
and managed. But the more recent scientific and agency
trend toward "ecosystem management" must call into question whether identifying and protecting grove boundaries
(rather than broader ecosystems) will actually perpetuate
the species, and the ancient giant specimen trees, for the
enjoyment and awe of future generations.
History
In the mid-1980's, timber managers on the Sequoia
National Forest decided it was time to log within the uncut
groves of Giant Sequoias. 3 Specimen redwoods were not
marked for logging, but essentially all the surrounding trees,
including ancient giants of other species, were marked for
sale. (The Forest Service referred to this as "nonintensive
management.") Timber sale documents stated that the logging
would improve chances for Giant Sequoia regeneration. But
that was not the primary goal of the logging operations.
Rather, logging was scheduled within the groves because it
was one more place from which the Forest could attempt to
meet its target for commercial timber production.
The Forest did not publicize to the citizenry at large its
decision to sell timber within Giant Sequoia groves. When
1
An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the
Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society,
June 23-25, 1992, Visalia. California.
2
Public Interest Lawyer, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 180
Montgomery Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94104-4230.
3
Converse Basin, part of the Hume Lake Ranger District, was cut
over about a century ago, Giant Sequoias and all. Otherwise, the Forest's
Giant Sequoia groves were mostly intact.
126
local citizens who discovered logging operations within the
groves became extremely upset, Forest Service employees
seemed genuinely surprised. These local citizens rallied the
Sierra Club, which filed suit.4
The result was a victory for environmentalists in Sierra
Club v. United States Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1190 (9th
Cir. 1988). The Sierra Club challenged nine timber sale
contracts, five of which involved logging in Giant Sequoia
groves, alleging that the Forest violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Court
of Appeal found that the individual environmental assess
ment reports (EAs) on the timber sales wrongly concluded
that no environmental impact statement (EIS) was required.
The sales were "highly controversial" in the sense that there
was a genuine dispute among experts over the impact of
logging on the groves. They also raised questions about
cumulative watershed and wildlife effects, and whether the
sales might cause violations of state water quality standards.
The Court in April of 1988 issued a preliminary injunction against further logging of the nine sales until the trial
court could determine whether the newly-completed EIS on
the Forest Plan (EIS, February 25, 1988) sufficed to meet
NEPA's requirements with respect to the nine challenged
timber sales.
Meanwhile, however, numerous persons and organizations, including plaintiff Sierra Club, appealed the Forest
Plan on a wide variety of issues. With respect to Giant
Sequoias, the Plan at least tentatively divided the Forest's
13,200 acres of groves into two categories: 3,900 acres
would be preserved, while 9,300 acres would be subject to
logging of species other than Giant Sequoia (EIS Table 4.3).
The Sierra Club and others objected to any further logging
in the groves.
The Forest Service hired a mediator to conduct what
turned out to be about a year-and-a-half of negotiations,
culminating in the multi-party Forest Plan Settlement Agreement of July 1990. During the course of the Forest Plan
negotiations, the lawsuit over the nine timber sales was
settled. (Sierra Club v. United States Forest Service, No.
CVF-87-263-EDP [E.D. Cal.], Stipulation for Entry of
Judgment, December 16, 1989.) The Forest Service agreed
to withdraw two timber sales altogether, not to allow further
logging in units containing Giant Sequoias, and to reforest
logged Giant Sequoia units so as to restore them as nearly as
4
The individuals most responsible for inspiring action to stop grove
logging were Ms. Charlene Little and Ms. Carla Cloer. I think the public owes
them a debt of gratitude. Julie E. McDonald, Public Interest Lawyer
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW-151. 1994
possible to their former natural state. Relatively more Giant
Sequoia seedlings were to be planted than the proportion
represented in the logged stands, seedlings were to be planted
at a minimum spacing of fifteen feet (farther apart than
normal for stands replanted for future commercial timber
production), and a reforestation report would be prepared
after five years.
Description of Mediation--Four
Crucial Points:
1. The mediation was a huge endeavor. It expanded from
a projected six to eighteen months. Meeting attendance ranged
from approximately eight to 45 people, with each meeting
including at least three lawyers and three Forest Service representatives. We spent countless hours in strange hotel rooms
and coffee shops reviewing our positions and negotiating.
2. The full range of views about forest management was
fiercely advocated. Sometimes the mediator would separate us
so that we could rethink and calmly state our positions. After a
while we got to know each other and could lapse into teasing
and humor. A long field trip helped us get out of a stalemate.
3. A key premise of our negotiations was that no
agreement on any issue would be final until the total package
was approved.
4. The final agreement was controversial within (at
least) both the environmentalist and timber communities.
But after so much negotiation, the parties were running out
of time and money: the agreement had to be either signed or
abandoned. To the credit of the Forest Service (James A.
Crates, Forest Supervisor, and Paul F. Barker, Regional
Forester), the agency decided to sign the agreement even
though some of the environmental and timber appellants
decided not to sign.
Settlement Agreement Requirements
The Forest Plan Settlement Agreement marked a decided
turn-around in the Forest's position on grove management.
The provisions relating to the Giant Sequoia groves were
hard-fought, line by line; but they eventually were accepted
by signatories that included local timber companies, the Tule
River Indian Tribe, the California Cattlemen's Association,
various off-highway vehicle and other recreational user groups,
environmental organizations, the Attorney General, and, of
course, the Forest Service.
The Agreement accomplishes the following (pp. 6-27):
1. Policy: The Agreement declares the Forest's groves to
be "a unique national treasure that shall be preserved." The
management goal "shall be to protect, preserve, and restore
the Groves for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations" (p. 6). The objective of regenerating cutover
Giant Sequoia groves "will be to restore these areas, as nearly
as possible, to the former natural forest condition" (p. 27).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW-151. 1994.
The Agreement excepts from these goals most of the
3,000-acre Converse Basin. Having been logged in the last
century, the Basin will "continue to be available for commercial logging" (p. 6). However, logging will require an
environmental impact statement, and no clearcutting will be
allowed. Also, 600 acres of the Basin previously identified
for preservation by the Forest Plan, plus an additional 240
acres to be selected where 70- to 100-year-old Giant Sequoias
are abundant, will be managed for preservation (p. 26).
2. Grove Boundaries: The Agreement recognizes that
Giant Sequoia grove boundaries "have not yet been precisely
identified" and that Giant Sequoias occur naturally in scattered locations outside the "traditional" groves identified
by Rundel (p. 12). It establishes a process for the Forest
Supervisor to determine grove boundaries based upon: (a)
recommendations of a Grove Boundary Team consisting
of representatives of the Sierra Club, Save-the-Redwoods
League, the timber industry, and the Forest Service, and (b) if
necessary, the advice of a panel of experts (pp. 11, 23-24).
The boundary process was supposed to be completed in
1991; however, it has turned out to be a more complicated
and expensive process than the parties anticipated. It is still
far from completion.
Under the Agreement, a grove includes (subject to
Boundary Team adjustments), in addition to areas identified
by Rundel, "[a]ny naturally occurring giant sequoia (1 foot
or larger dbh) which is located within 500 feet of at least 3
other giant sequoias (each 1 foot or larger dbh)" (p. 13). A
grove also includes, with smaller protective boundaries, "[a]ny
detached naturally occurring group (10 or more giant
sequoia trees with at least 4 trees with a 3 foot or larger dbh)
located outside the Grove Influence Zone" (see below) (p. 21).
The interim boundary for each grove (pending the
Supervisor's decision) includes a 500-foot buffer around the
outermost Giant Sequoia trees (p. 7). Beyond the grove there
is also a 500-foot Grove Influence Zone (p. 8).
Boundaries are subject to ongoing modification if more
Giant Sequoia trees are later discovered (p. 22).
3. Management Restrictions:
a. All groves (interim and final) are removed from the
"suitable land" base that is subject to commercial timber
operations. Mechanical entry is restricted (e.g., to existing
roads) (p. 7). The Forest must begin to inventory and evaluate
each grove for fuel load build-up, and set priorities for
treatment. There can be no logging in a grove within the
period covered by the Forest Plan except "for the limited and
specific purpose of reducing the fuel load ... pursuant to a
Grove specific fuel load reduction plan and Grove specific
EIS" (p. 10). The objective must be "to preserve, protect,
restore and regenerate the Giant Sequoia Groves, without
unnecessary damage to any old-growth trees in the Grove"
(pp. 10-11).
b. Grove Influence Zones can only be logged using
single-tree or small group uneven-aged silviculture (pp. 8, 25).
127
c. The Forest Service must also use "every reasonable
effort" to protect naturally occurring individual Giant
Sequoia trees (pp. 20-21).
d. Cutover groves are to be managed so as "to restore
these areas, as nearly as possible, to the former natural forest
condition" (p. 27).
4. Special Management of Specific Groves and Vicinity:
The Agreement establishes special requirements for certain
groves and nearby areas (pp. 16-19). For example, some
small groves are combined into a larger single grove, and the
Freeman Creek Grove is designated a Botanic Area (p. 17).
5. Special Notice: The Agreement requires that parties
to the Agreement be given specific notice, with opportunity
for comment and field review, of any proposed logging,
either upslope of a grove or within 1,000 feet of an interim or
final grove boundary (pp. 23, 25).
128
The Future
While the Agreement protects Giant Sequoia "groves,"
current knowledge, as well as recent Forest Service direction
at the Regional and national levels, highlight the need to
protect whole ecosystems.
There is a need to determine what the Giant Sequoia
ecosystem is, and how it can best be managed so as to assure
the future health of Giant Sequoia and other associated plant
and animal species.
One thing that is certain is that people are deeply moved
in the presence of living things as mighty and beautiful as
ancient Giant Sequoias. There will always be people willing
to fight for whatever it takes to preserve the ancient trees, the
Giant Sequoia species, and the Giant Sequoia ecosystem. It
should be public policy to do all of this.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW-151. 1994