Four years ago, spurred by lawsuits by environmentalists, the federal agency listed the coho salmon as a threatened species. Recently, it added steelhead trout to the list, provoking an outcry from commercial and recreational fishermen alike, since it meant they could no longer be caught. For a state as dependent on aquatic resources, tourism and recreational activities as California is, the economic implications of such listings can be profound.

The economic argument and pressure from the federal government have given advocates of logging reform an opening. A scientific review panel appointed jointly by the administration of former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and the National Marine Fisheries Service has called for stricter logging rules. The current rules expire at the end of this year, further increasing pressure on lawmakers in the state capital to fashion a replacement.

The upshot is a fierce political battle centering on Assembly Bill 717, the reform vehicle sponsored by Democratic Assembly Speaker pro Tem Fred Keeley. A proud environmentalist, Keeley says he believes that "forestry can take place in a responsible manner, but we're falling short of that at the moment."

California needs to be more vigilant about protecting its natural resources from the effects of logging, says Keeley, whether that logging occurs on private or public land. "The fact is that timber harvesting is an activity which directly affects public-trust resources. The streams and creeks and rivers are not private property."

Keeley's bill would require that citizens be fully notified of proposed timber harvest plans, including clear-cuts, and that the plans undergo peer review by scientists independent of the timber industry for their effects on watersheds. The bill would not ban clear-cutting, but it would expose it to greater scrutiny and probably mean it would happen less often. Opposed by the timber industry, the bill passed the full Assembly by just three votes, and only after language mandating civil and criminal fines for logging violations was dropped.

"The timber industry in California has an enormous amount of political power," says Keeley, "frankly, far out of scale with their economic position in the state. They oftentimes partner up with the California Farm Bureau and others and together they form a very, very formidable bloc."

The Davis administration has taken no position on Keeley's bill; instead, it has proposed its own reform plan, but with less strict provisions for review and notification. Environmentalists say the administration plan amounts to letting industry regulate itself.

"What Gov. Davis' plan would do is let the timber companies gather their own data [about the likely effects of logging on watersheds] and then write their own rules about how to proceed," says Kevin Bundy, policy director at the Environmental Protection and Information Center. The center filed suit against the California Department of Forestry last month, charging that the state's failure to regulate logging adequately is killing coho salmon in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. "What bill 717 would do is guarantee that the process is based on sound science and that the public has a role in commenting on the proceedings."

Blumberg, the Forestry Department spokesman, says the Davis administration is already getting tougher on the timber industry: "This administration recognized from the time it took office that forest practice rules were inadequate. The administration has adopted a comprehensive, multifaceted strategy to deal with this problem. In last year's budget Governor Davis provided funding for 70 new field staff to oversee and monitor timber harvest plans."

But the new scrutiny hasn't led to more timber harvest plans being turned down. Last year, the Forestry Department approved 574 plans and rejected none. Blumberg denies that the department rubber-stamps the plans, explaining, "We don't approve or disapprove plans because we like or dislike them. Our legal mandate is to work with the landowners to ensure that their plans meet environmental laws."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

A clear-cut can't be fully taken in at ground level. The best view is an aerial one. I got a plane ride over the clear-cut near Big Trees with Warren Alford of the Sierra Club. We took off from Calaveras County airport in a bush plane piloted by Jim Armstrong, who soon had us bouncing among the air currents 2,000 feet above the Sierra foothills. The mighty Stanislaus River was off to our right, and looking down from the back seat, I was able to pick out below me the tiny clearing and pond beside my old cabin in the woods. I knew the Big Trees were just over the next ridge.

I asked Alford how close the park is to the planned clear-cuts.

"You're talking about 50 feet," he replied. "I could hit it easily with a rock and I don't have a very good arm. All along this canyon wall on each of these little tributaries are going to be these 23 acre clear-cuts. Again that's going to be two or three football fields in size, just pockmarked through this area."

I had walked the forests below me hundreds of times, but that plane ride showed me a whole new side of them. The contrast between the rich green of the trees and the bare red clay of past clear-cuts reminded me of a golf course fairway that had been overrun by too many sand traps. Sierra Pacific says that the view from above doesn't tell the whole story, that when clear-cuts are done properly, they can actually keep forests healthier than selective logging can.

And even some people entrusted with protecting the giant sequoias agree that responsible clear-cuts can work -- although theirs is a minority view among environmentalists. "We prefer them to large-scale selective cutting because they result, in the long run, in a more diverse forest age structure ... and that in turn creates a diversity of habitat types which of course benefits wildlife," says Wayne Harrison, a resource ecologist at Big Trees State Park.

Nevertheless, local opposition to the clear-cut near Big Trees is growing. The Calaveras County Board of Supervisors voted Monday to send a letter to Davis asking him to reopen the public comment period concerning the clear-cut and to reexamine logging practices in general in California. The following night, a reported 435 citizens convened at the local middle school for a town meeting about the proposed clear-cut. They angrily criticized the local Forestry Department official who had approved the timber harvest plan for the area.

Meanwhile, most Californians I spoke to while reporting this story were surprised to learn that clear-cutting is legal in the first place. Ultimately, it's up to them to decide whether it should stay that way. "We have not been served with a request to ban clear-cutting," Blumberg says. "If banning clear-cutting is important to the people of California, they have a remedy through the legislative process to seek redress."

John Muir, mountaineer and the father of American environmentalism, is best known for establishing Yosemite National Park. But Muir also fought on behalf of the giant sequoias at Big Trees with his pamphlet, "And the Vandals Danced Upon the Stump." Now, modern loggers are poised to clear-cut 884 acres on the border of the park where the vandals once danced. Muir credited God with saving the giant sequoias "through all the eventful centuries since Christ's time." But, he warned, "God cannot save these trees from sawmills and fools. This is left to the American people."

Politics 2000: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.