Reflections on Management Strategies of the Sequoia
National Forest: A Grassroots View1
Carla A. Cloer 2
Abstract: In 1986, local citizens discovered that giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum [Lindl.] Buchholz) groves were being intensively logged
by modified clearcutting which removed all vegetation around specimen
sequoias in areas each up to 50 acres. After logging, the groves were to
have plantations established in them. More than 1,000 acres in various
groves had been approved for such treatment. When an administrative
appeal to Sequoia National Forest failed to stop these projects, a lawsuit
was filed, resulting in an injunction stopping the logging. Today, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, policy precludes such intense
logging, however groves on Forest Service lands remain unprotected by
law. Logged-over groves need study to determine how best to restore
them; thousands of seedlings planted in recently logged groves will result
in crowded even-aged plantations; logging roads within groves need to be
restored to natural conditions. It will take centuries to evaluate consequences of recent activities; intact portions of groves must have strictly
minimum management so as to preserve options for future generations.
At the turn of the century, logging abuses in groves of
giant sequoia caused a public outcry which led to the
formation of National Parks to protect many of the groves
(Hartesveldt and others 1975). Most groves unprotected by
National Parks were within Sequoia National Forest. The
Forest's 38 groves were generally left alone until the Forest
Service initiated a prescribed burn in the Bearskin Grove in
1975 (Rogers 1986). This initial experimental management
of one small area of one grove was quickly followed by
several decisions in rapid succession between 1982 and
1986 to intensely log within over 1,000 acres within giant
sequoia groves (Cloer and Little 1987). For the most part,
these decisions were made without public input. Beginning
in 1987, following the lawsuit to stop such logging, public
awareness and news media attention of logging activities in
groves of giant sequoia has intensified. Articles in such
magazines as Audubon (Green 1990), National Geographic
(Findley 1990), Sierra, The San Diego Tribune (Levin 1987),
as well as articles in the San Francisco Examiner (Kay
1992), and the Sacramento Bee (Knudson 1991) have raised
public awareness that their favorite tree and the groves of
which it is an integral part are not protected throughout their
range; the groves in the National Forests have no statutory
protection. This paper will describe the local citizens' battle
to stop intense logging in groves and explain their insistence
that the groves be legislatively protected.
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
Co-founder of Sequoia Forest Alliance; member, Executive Committee of the Kern-Kawaeeaah Chapter of the Sierra Club, Boards of the Rule
River Conservancy and the Sequoia Forest Citizens Coalition; litigation
committee of Tulare County Audubon. Address: 182 East Reid Avenue,
Porterville, CA 93257.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
Forest Service Policy
In the southern Sierras, between the extremes of the
granitic high country and the southern terminal ending in the
Mojave Desert, lies the narrow Sierran conifer forest. Here
the mixed-conifers including ponderosa, Jeffrey, and white
pine, incense cedar, red and white fir, are reigned by the
monarch of the Sierra, the giant sequoia, whose glowing red
bark and magnificent size has inspired so many.
In the early 1980's, local citizens, particularly those in
the Kern Valley Wildlife Association, became alarmed by
Sequoia National Forest's increase in using clearcutting in
non-grove areas as a method of logging. This harsh treatment
of the forest resulted in thousands of 10 to 40 acre patches
where virtually no vegetation or wildlife remained after
logging. The forest was being logged much too fast to meet
the legal mandate for a sustained yield, and this logging
was being done at a financial loss to the taxpayer (Rice
1991). The replanted pine seedlings often died in the hotter,
dryer "clearcuts." The forest was becoming fragmented,
stream sediments increased, riparian zones became damaged,
ponderosa and Jeffrey pine plantations replaced true fir
forests, and recreation and visual qualities were degraded.
Soon the local Sierra Club became involved in logging
issues, and local citizens formed Sequoia Forest Alliance.
Although it was obvious that overlogging the forest
adjacent to giant sequoia groves would eventually affect the
groves themselves, there was no immediate concern for
logging within giant sequoia groves. Not only was there the
assumption that logging within groves was prohibited, many
groves were posted with yellow signs which declared:
Type I
Redwood Grove
Area Back of This Sign
Established Under Reg U-3
by Regional Forester
According to 1970 Region V Guidelines this meant
that ..."no major activities such as campground or road
construction, or timber cutting, will be permitted within any
Type I Grove." This was the first specific Forest Service
Manual direction for management of giant sequoias (Rogers
1985). Sequoia National Forest documents written between
1970 and 1984, including District Multiple-Use Plans, refer
to various groves as being Type I.
Then in the Fall of 1986, Charlene Little saw a timber
sale ad which offered a "marginal amount of Giant Sequoia..."
In response to her letter of concern Regional Forester, Zane
G. Smith, Jr., wrote, "We have not changed our long standing Regional Direction for the management of the Sierra
Redwood Groves" (Smith 1986).
129
Any reassurance from the above statement was short
lived. One day in summer of 1986, while looking at nongrove areas, Charlene Little stumbled into a logged-over
portion of the Long Meadow Grove. Roads had been pushed
through the grove, large roots had been severed (Pintek 1987b),
huge swaths of earth had been piled, all vegetation had been
removed except for giant sequoias eight feet in diameter
and larger; to the observers it appeared to be disastrous
"nuclear" logging.
What had happened to the Type I protection? The official
response was, "Some grove boundaries were posted with
Grove Type signs, but no groves were approved as Type I by
the Regional Forester" (Crates 1987). They had no idea who
had posted hundreds of signs. "Recent conversations with
individuals that worked on the Forest during the 1960's and
1970's have indicated that much of the posting was probably
done during the 1960's. We have no record of what the
policy was prior to the May 1970 direction" (Crates 1987).
Now there was a new grove designation system (USDA
1985). This new designation system 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 1985,
the only written record available was 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.
Attempts to Stop the Logging
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 (Crates 1987). 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 (Fisk 1986).
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 Sierra Club vs. The United States Forest Service
[also described by Julie McDonald in these Proceedings
(McDonald 1992)], the Sierra Club sought an injunction on
nine timber sales, five of which involved logging in giant
sequoia groves. A major issue was Sequoia National Forest's
130
failure to have an Environmental Impact Statement on any
portion of its timber program.
Sequoia National Forest argued that the logging was
actually "grove enhancement" and was being done to release
the sequoias from a buildup of non-sequoia species which
were causing a fire hazard and inhibiting sequoia reproduction. During the lawsuit discovery process, however, Sequoia
National 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 prescriptions called for planting 75
percent pine and 25 percent sequoia at 10 by 10 foot spacing,
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.
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 National Forest was
pressed to meet inflated logging volumes (Green 1990).
Giant sequoias typically occupy the better timber growing
sites (Rogers 1985); and about this same time Sequoia
National 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
in turn become logged during the next re-entry. Natural
restoration occurred 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 (Harvey 1985).
Sequoias which had germinated from the natural seed bed
had grown to considerable size, up to six feet in diameter. In
the Cabin Sale (1985), however, 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 they did
not qualify for sparing. By the same logic, any sequoia tree
which was established after the more recent logging would
also be "second growth" and available for logging.
Experts found that the type of logging occurring in the
groves could cause significant environmental impacts (Rundel
1987 and Stephenson 1987). 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
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. The precedent was set, however, that the groves were
not to be treated the same as any ordinary piece of the forest.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
Planted pine seedlings line up in shadow of the 150- to 300-year-old trees they replace in a unit of the Black Mountain Grove, Tule River
Ranger District of Sequoia National Forest, logged in 1988. This type of logging in groves is termed "non-intensive" management; in 1986,
9,300 acres within groves were assigned to "non-intensive" management (Fisk 1986).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
131
Even after the injunction was in place stopping the
project, Sequoia National Forest continued with the site
preparation and planting. During the course of site preparation,
many smaller giant sequoias, up to eight inches in diameter
(some 60 years old), were accidentally cut, piled, and burned.
These stumps are evidence that the grove was indeed
regenerating itself before the "treatment," and evidence
that young sequoia reproduction was not a priority to
Sequoia National Forest.
While the contract provided for penalties for damaging
any giant sequoia, Sequoia National Forest did not penalize
the industry for cutting these trees, explaining, "The original
Environmental Analysis Report ... designated the protection
of specimen `reserve' giant sequoia trees. Because of the
fact that the giant sequoias cut were not of specimen 'reserve'
size as defined in the original Environmental Analysis and
not designated as reserve trees as indicated in C2.3# Reserve Trees in the timber contract no action was taken"
(Crates 1989).
Land Management Plan
After the injunction was in place, and Sequoia National
Forest was clearly aware of public sentiment favoring grove
preservation, the Land Management Plan, issued in 1988,
called for similar treatment of 9,300 acres of giant sequoia
groves. The Sierra Club and others appealed the Land Management Plan on this and other issues.
As late as 1990, Environmental Assessments were
listing the goals to "manage groves with objectives of
perpetuating the species, preserving old-growth specimen
trees, and providing timber." Please note that throughout
all the controversy, no one has suggested that there is a
shortage of individual giant sequoia trees; the concern has
been for the natural processes of the ecological entity called
a "grove." Persuading the Forest Service to protect "groves"
instead of merely protecting unique large specimen trees
while doing tree-farm management around them has been a
continuing battle.
Settlement Agreement
The July 1990 Settlement of the Sierra Club's administrative appeal (McDonald 1988) of Sequoia National Forest's
Land Management Plan calls for an amendment to the Forest
Plan which would manage most groves for preservation of
natural processes. The Settlement takes the majority of grove
acres out of the "suitable timber base," but logging is allowed
in groves to remove fuel loads which might pose a fire
threat. To some environmentalists, this language is too similar
to some of the arguments justifying recent harsh logging.
Another of the Settlement Agreement's weaknesses is that
its definition of "grove" does not take into account those
environmental factors upon which the groves may depend. It
defines groves as small, unconnected islands with narrow
buffers; Settlement provisions call for placing grove boundaries 500 feet from the outermost sequoia. In many cases this
132
will be insufficient for long-term protection. For example
actions far above groves can interrupt or change surface and/
or subterranean water flow upon which the groves depend.
The Settlement is also deficient because it does not require
that all sequoias be in a grove; it allows for "naturally
occurring giant sequoias outside of groves." Another failing
of the Settlement Agreement is that it allows logging in the
historical Converse Basin Grove. Remember, the giant
sequoia provisions of the Settlement Agreement were not
based on scientific grove biology. The Settlement was a
compromise bargained between environmental groups, the
Forest Service, and the timber industry. Proposals made
during negotiations were screened by first running them
through the computer to check how they would affect
logging volumes.
Even should the Settlement Agreement provisions be
satisfactory, it leads to an amended Forest Plan which will
provide protection by Forest Service policy. Remember the
Type I policy which protected the groves and which was
changed with so little notice! We may have policy protection
once again, but now many of our finest groves are greatly
damaged. Local citizens feel that significantly stronger
protection is needed, and that the areas to be protected need
to be connected and buffered in a large giant sequoia reserve.
Enforcement of Policy
No projects are supposed to be approved in groves until
scientific study has been completed and until specific grove
management plans are written. But constant public monitoring is necessary. Last June, a timber sale was sold and even
marked on the ground within the Alder Creek Grove (Tule
Helicopter Sale 1991). This past April a supposed hazard
tree removal project in the McIntyre Grove (USDA 1992)
resulted in the logging of several non-hazard trees (Key
1992) with much unnecessary bulldozing; while investigating
that sale, we found that other areas of the grove had been
logged and bulldozed in the 1990 Nelson Tractor Sale.
Many salvage timber sale boundaries take in portions of
giant sequoia groves; while decisions state that no logging
will occur in groves, there are no indications of grove boundaries on sale maps so grove intrusion is quite possible.
Problems in the Logged Groves
Giant sequoia grove ecologists need to take a hard look
at the recently logged groves. While studies and surveys of
groves will cost money, it is important to note that the timber
sales within the groves cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands
of dollars more to administer and reforest than the income
received for the logged timber. If fuel load reduction had
been the prime purpose of all the logging, a much more cost
effective way for achieving that purpose could have been
found (O'Toole 1988).
Potential problems exist in these logged groves which
may need remediation in the near future. One evident problem is that many of the specimen sequoias had trenches dug
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
This 15-acre unit of the Black Mountain Grove, cable logged in 1987, contains the three isolated "specimen" sequoias named "The Three
Sisters." The fire set to "broadcast burn" logging slash on the 50 percent slope burned much too hot.
around them to protect them from fire during the burning of
logging slash. These trenches, some on very steep slopes, act
to concentrate the increased water run-off coming down
from freshly denuded slopes. Over time many of these huge
trees may become undercut, lose their balance and fall over.
It is possible that this effect could be mitigated if work is
begun soon.
Before the lawsuit was settled, Sequoia National Forest
replanted 75 percent pine and 25 percent giant sequoia seedlings at 10 by 10 foot spacing up to the drip lines of the
remaining giants. The lawsuit settlement required recently
logged groves to be restored to natural conditions; that
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
requirement was interpreted to be the planting up to five
seedlings of various conifer species in 12 inch circles at 15
by 15 foot spacing up to the drip line of remaining giants. If
the growing sites are as good as predicted, soon there will be
an overcrowded conifer thicket in all of these groves.
Ostensibly, the groves were stripped of their trees to
reduce fire hazard, yet in many cases the fire ladder is still
in place. And worse than before, at the bottom of the
fire ladder, waiting like an incendiary bomb, is the most
flammable item in the forest: an even-aged plantation. In
established plantations such as in the Alder Creek Grove, it
may be too late to initiate a natural-like fire regime; hand
133
This aerial view of logging on Sequoia National Forest shows a clearcut harvest unit in both
grove and non-grove areas: the spared giant sequoias in the Long Meadow Grove stand newly
vulnerable to the elements in a modified clearcut.
thinning may be necessary. In the recently planted groves, a
corp of volunteers could relieve the area of excess nonnatural seedlings.
In the groves there are many temporary roads, landings,
and firebreaks, compacted and pouring increased runoff and
sediment into the streams; these need to be restored back to a
natural state. Some logging roads cut across subterranean
water flow that used to seep across a wide area, sustaining
the groves. Now, because the flow has been interrupted by
road cuts, the water is collected, channeled into culverts, and
134
concentrated into narrow surface streams. This loss of subsurface water could have catastrophic impacts on the future
of certain groves.
Many of the groves have cattle grazing in them. The
cumulative impacts of grazing need to be studied in addition
to all of the other impacts already occurring in the groves.
As for the supposed problem of lack of sequoia reproduction,
how many recruitment trees are optimum? Many of the
Black Mountain sites contain plentiful sequoias in many age
classes. This is the same grove that had the smaller Sequoias
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
removed by accident. I believe that short-lived human beings lack perspective when looking at a species that can live
3,500 years and still be fertile. Even one recruitment per acre
every century might be too many if you consider that other
tree species also grow in a natural grove. While it is certain
that fire has a natural role in all areas of the Sierra, certainly
some grove areas did not burn for extended periods of time,
perhaps even several hundred years. The trees targeted for
recent logging from groves were old-growth pine ranging
from 150 to 350 years of age (stump evidence). As for recent
logging emulating fire, it is difficult to imagine a natural fire
regime which would totally consume the ancient pines and
leave the giant sequoias intact. If the recent logging emulated fire in any way, there should have been no need to
artificially replant sequoia; clearly, despite agency rhetoric,
the replanting of pine was not intended to imitate nature.
We need to change the timber production mentality which
refers to stocking standards; a natural grove in most cases
does not consist of pure sequoia, but rather is a mixed-conifer
forest with a diversity of age classes. In a natural grove there
are some areas which do not contain sequoias, perhaps even
for centuries; we must enlarge our vision in order to understand a species which exceeds our concept of time.
Probably the greatest threat to the groves involves the
continuous degradation and fragmentation of the adjacent
forests. While the Settlement Agreement calls for some
constraints on logging, and while recent studies on the plight
of old-growth dependent species are calling for a reduction
of clearcutting and logging volumes, Sequoia's timber
program, to date, appears to be unchanged. Sequoia National
Forest's Five Year Sale Plan shows a continuation of what
local involved citizens believe is an unsustainable and
destructive amount of logging and clearcutting.
The Future
The giant sequoia tries human beings' lack of patience
and humility; as so many have noted, in our short lifetimes
we cannot know but a small portion of the sequoia story. It
may be centuries before the consequences of this generation's
actions can be evaluated. In the past century and a half
nearly every impact imaginable, from subdivisions to clearcuts,
has occurred in one grove or another. The few groves or
portions of groves that have been spared must, to the greatest
extent possible, have minimum intrusion. As long as a grove
contains seed bearing trees, there will be options. The danger
is not in doing too little, but in doing too much.
Not only do scientists need the remaining untouched
groves for baseline comparison, we must not foreclose the
options of future generations who will better understand
Sequoia ecology. We must continue to gather information
about this fascinating species and trust that our children and
their children will value these magnificent creations, build
upon our knowledge, and continue our work.
I urge all who study and love giant sequoias to visit and
hike in the forest and see how it is being managed. Defend
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994
these places, refuse to let research findings be misapplied,
and don't trust agencies to always do the right thing. Tell
Congress that the natural world matters to you; indeed we
cannot exist without it. Tell them that the sequoia groves
will be safe only if the entire forest which sustains them is
healthy. Insist on legislative protection for a generous
reserve connecting and buffering the groves.
My favorite giant sequoia is the Wishbone Tree in the
Wheel Meadow Grove. I first met it when I was about five
years old. As sequoias go, it's not terribly big, but it looks like
a wishbone because of the opening at its base. The trail
goes through that opening, and I can ride my horse through
without ducking my head. The tradition is that as you pass
through the tree you touch it and make a wish. Today,
instead of my former teenage wishes for fame or fortune, my
wish is much more serious; it is for life on earth to continue;
it is a wish that countless future generations of children will
be able to reach out and touch this tree with wonder and awe
as they make their own wishes.
Acknowledgments
Thanks Charlene Little and Martin Litton for their
inspiration, dedication, and commitment to achieving permanent protection, not only for giant sequoia groves, but for
the unique Sierra Nevada conifer forests of which the groves
are but a part. I wish to express gratitude to my daughter,
Catherine, whose childhood was spent with a mother's
continuous battle to save a part of the forest. Photos used for
this paper are by Martin Litton.
References
Cloer, Carla; Little, Charlene. 1987. Administrative appeal, timber harvesting within giant sequoia groves, on behalf of the Sierra Club and
Forest Alliance. Unpublished draft supplied by authors.
Crates, James A. [Letter to Charlene Little]. 1987 February 10. 1 leaf.
Located at: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia
National Forest, Porterville, California.
Crates, James A. [Letter to Carla Cloer]. 1989 February 14. 1 leaf. Located
at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia National
Forest, Porterville, California.
Crates, James A. [Letter to Charlene Little]. 1987 February 20. 1 leaf.
Located at: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia
National Forest, Porterville, California.
Crates, James A. [Letter to Carla Cloer]. 1987 February 23. 1 leaf. Located
at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia National
Forest, Porterville, California.
Findley, Rowe. Will we save our own? National Geographic. 1990
September.
Fisk, Ken. [Memo to Management Team]. 1986 September 8.
Green, Lee. They are raping the giant sequoias, Audubon Magazine, 1990
May.
Hartesveldt, R.J. The "discoveries" of the giant sequoia. Journal Forest
History 1975.
Harvey, Thomas H. Evolution and history of giant sequoia. 1986. In:
Weatherspoon, C. Phillip; Iwamoto, Y. Robert; Piirto, Douglas D.,
tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop on management of giant
sequoias; May 24-25, 1985; Reedley, California. Gen Tech. Rep. PSW95. Berkeley, CA; Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1-3.
135
Kay, Jane. Logging threat to sierra giants. San Francisco Examiner. 1992
May 24.
Key, Sandra. [Letter to John Rasmussen]. 1992 April 29. Located at: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest,
Porterville, California.
Knudson, Tom. The Sierra in peril. Sacramento Bee. Series, 1991 June 9-13.
Levin, Ann. Sharp words cut deep in logging war. San Diego Tribune.
1987 Nov. 11.
McDonald, Julie E. Appeal to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Sequoia
National Forest Plan and EIS, Statement of Reasons and Exhibit
Volumes I, II, and III, 1988 July 20.
McDonald, Julie. The Mediated Settlement: Proceedings of the symposium on giant sequoias, their place in the ecosystem and society,
Visalia, California . 1992 June 25-27.
O'Toole, Randall. Review of the Sequoia Forest Plan and Final EIS,
CHEC, 1988 Aug.
Pintek, Steve. Affidavit, 1987a June 8.
Pintek, Steve. [Memo to contracting officer]. 1987b May 21. 1 leaf.
Located at: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia
National Forest, Porterville, California.
Rice, Richard E. Taxpayer Losses from National Forest Timber Sales, FY
1990, Wilderness Society, 1991 May.
Rogers, R.R. Management of giant sequoia in the National Forests of the
Sierra Nevada, California. In: Weatherspoon, C. Phillip; Iwamoto, Y.
Robert; Piirto, Douglas D., tech. coords. Proceedings of the workshop
on management of giant sequoias; May 24-25, 1985; Reedley, California. Gen Tech. Rep. PSW-95. Berkeley, CA; Pacific Southwest Forest
136
and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; 32-36.
Rundel, Philip W. Affidavit in support of complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief, unpublished, 1987 May 17.
Sierra Club, et al. Mediated Settlement Agreement of Sequoia National
Forest Land Management Plan Administrative Appeals, 1990 July.
Sierra Club vs. United States Forest Service, 843 F. 2d 1 190 (9th Cir. 1988).
Settlement, Sierra Club, giant sequoia lawsuit, 1989 December 28.
Smith, Zane G.,Jr. [Letter to Charlene Little]. 1986 December 12. Located at:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia National
Forest, Porterville, California.
Stephenson, Nathan L. Affidavit in support of complaint for declaratory
and injunctive relief, unpublished, 1987 May 23.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Sequoia National
Forest Tule River Ranger District. Human Hazard Tree Removal
Environmental Assessment.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Sequoia National
Forest. Tule River Ranger District. Nelson Tractor Sale Environmental
Assessment.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1970.Forest Service Manual
Title 2400, Timber Management, Sierra Redwood Groves, R-5 Supplement No. 91.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985. Forest Service
Manual. Title 2400, Timber Management, Giant Sequoia Groves, R-5
Supplement No. 28.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988. Sequoia National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994