Sierra Club Wins Lawsuit against Logging
Giant Sequoia National Monument

GIANT SEQUOIA WINS COURT PROTECTION

Judge Rules Against Bush Administration Logging Plan

August 22, 2006

San Francisco, CA – A federal judge today ruled that the Bush administration's controversial plan to allow commercial logging in Giant Sequoia National Monument Conservation is illegal. The Sierra Club and other conservation groups celebrated the decision and urged the Bush administration to restore and protect the Giant Sequoia National Monument with the same standard of care given to neighboring Sequoia National Park.

"The Forest Service's interest in harvesting timber has trampled the applicable environmental laws," wrote Judge Charles R. Breyer, writing for the United States District Court for Northern California, who also ruled that the "Monument Plan is decidedly incomprehensible."

In addition to ruling that the Forest Service's overall plan to allow commercial logging in Giant Sequoia Monument is illegal, Judge Breyer also invalidated several individual timber sales because of their impact on endangered wildlife.

"The Forest Service should be managing Giant Sequoia as a gift to future generations, not as a gift to the timber industry," said Bruce Hamilton, Sierra Club's Conservation Director. "Today's ruling only strengthens the case for transferring management of this magnificent Monument to neighboring Sequoia National Park, where it would be treated with the good stewardship it deserves."

Giant Sequoia National Monument boasts more than half of all the Sequoia redwoods in the world, with most of the remainder found in the adjacent National Park. The popularity and awe-inspiring beauty of the Sequoia forest and its wildlife led President Bill Clinton permanently protect the forest as a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. Earlier, President George Bush Sr. had proclaimed the Sequoia groves off limits to commercial logging.

In 2005, the Bush administration officially reversed those policies by finalizing plans to allow what amounts to commercial logging in the Monument, even inside the prized Giant Sequoia groves. The administration's plan would have allowed 7.5 million board feet of timber to be removed annually from the Monument, enough to fill 1,500 logging trucks each year. This policy would have included logging of healthy trees of any species as big as 30 inches in diameter or more. Trees that size can be as much as 300 years old.

As a model for better management, the Sierra Club and others strongly urged the Bush administration to look to nearby Sequoia National Park, where innovative conservation and fire prevention strategies have reinvigorated the Sequoia groves and made nearby communities safer. Unlike the Forest Service, which has proposed selling timber contracts to log healthy trees, the National Park Service effectively uses prescribed burning and thinning of smaller, more flammable trees and brush.

The complaint against the Forest Service was brought by the Sierra Club, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, Earth Island Institute, Tule River Conservancy, Sequoia Forest Keeper, and Center for Biological Diversity, and in separate suit filed by the California Attorney General. The Sierra Club, Earthjustice and John Muir Project co-counselled the case.

"The plan proposed by the Forest Service ignores the clear recommendations of its own fire scientists that fire risk reduction is not about logging large trees," stated Craig Thomas, Director of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign.

"The American people are looking to their government to protect these forests forever as a National Monument, not as a tree farm," stated Carla Cloer of the Tule River Conservancy. "Logging the Sequoia National Monument is just as unacceptable as selling the Statue of Liberty for scrap metal.

To view maps of the areas within the Monument where logging will be permitted, go to: http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/sequoiaplan

In his opinion [PDF text] in the Attorney General's lawsuit, Breyer held the plan lacked "coherent or clear guidance" and was "decidedly incomprehensible." In a separate opinion [PDF text] in the case brought by environmental groups, Breyer issued a permanent injunction barring the Forest Service from continuing with its plans until the Forest Service conducts an adequate and sufficient supplemental ... review" under the National Environmental Policy Act .