Simply Politics & News

[sarals]

Will Sequoias survive?
Editorial
Tuesday, September 5, 2006

CREDIT THE Bush team with this much: If there's a tree worth chopping down, they'll do almost anything and go anywhere to do it.

In the past, the administration has sought roads in wilderness country, expanded logging in the name of fire prevention and gutted a consensus timber-cutting plan for the Sierra.

An especially disturbing target is the Sequoia National Monument, created in 2000 by President Bill Clinton. The monument -- next to the national park of the same name -- hosts half of the surviving big trees. Some are 3,000 years old and 30 feet around. The monument designation was intended to safeguard these rough-barked skyscrapers and the surrounding forests.

Incredibly, the Bush team has picked apart wording in the monument designation to produce an excuse for timber cuts. The argument is that forest health requires clearing small trees up to 30 inches in diameter to remove fire hazards.

In reality, though, this plan is plain-and-simple logging. Yes, small trees that pose a fire danger will be removed, but doing so includes cutting trees up to 300 years old. The timber business in the south Sierra is all but through -- only one major mill remains -- so why continue it with plans that could harm the last stands of sequoias?

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco halted the federal plan. He called the tree-cutting arguments "decidedly incomprehensible,'' mainly because the federal agency neglected required scientific studies. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and environmental groups challenged the plan last year.

What happens next is critical. The U.S. Forest Service could appeal Breyer's decision. Or it could follow the law cited by the judge: Study the impact of a logging plan in sensitive terrain and heed the evidence. There's a third option in the outside lane: Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, is proposing to exempt logging in the area from such rules with a bill in Congress. This end-run should be rejected.

The sequoia groves were rightfully protected along with the forests around them. This landscape may need nurturing, but it doesn't need knocking down.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/09/05/EDGJKKT7L91.DTL