|
|
Bush administration works to unravel
plan to protect Sierra Nevada forests
ACT
NOW! | Background
| Key aspects | Support
| Regression | Status
In 2001, a historic plan to preserve old growth
forests and wildlife in the Sierra was signed
by the Forest Service. This plan, the Sierra
Nevada Framework, changed the direction of the
Forest Service from overlogging and roadbuilding
toward more balance in the forests. It also
set in place guidelines to remove brush and
small trees near communities to decrease the
risk of catastrophic forest fires, while protecting
ancient forests.
But now the Forest Service, under a new administration,
wants to weaken protections and let timber companies
cut large old growth trees deep in the forest.
This plan would go back to the old days of overlogging,
threaten the future for many species of wildlife,
and double logging in our Sierra Nevada national
forests.
Don't let the Forest Service do an about-face!
Tell the agency
to keep the Framework in place as agreed to
in 2001.
Background
On January 12, 2001, Regional Forester Brad
Powell signed the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment (“Framework”) Record of
Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The decision affects 11.5 millions acres on
11 national forests in the 430-mile-long Sierra
Nevada mountain range, spanning the northeast
border with Oregon to the Sequoia National Forest
in the south.
The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment is a
result of 14 years of planning, research, conservation
efforts, and a major policy tug-of-war. Starting
with conservation groups raising concerns over
habitat destruction affecting the California
spotted owl in the late 80’s, we witnessed
a series of often failed efforts to protect
the spotted owl and old growth forest habitat
on the part of the Forest Service. The Sierra
Nevada Framework decision, although far from
perfect, is a major positive step toward ecologically
based conservation planning for this mountain
range.
Key
aspects of the Framework
The key aspects of the Framework plan are:
- a commitment to restoration and protection
of 4.1 million acres of old growth forest habitat
- key core area protections (639,000 acres)
for the California spotted owl and goshawk rangewide
- protection of all trees greater than 20”
on 11 of the 11.5 million acres of public land
managed by the Forest Service
- a 1 million-acre Southern Fisher Conservation
Area
- a 300’ stream buffer system with 460,000
acres of critical aquatic refuges
- a fuels-reduction program that specifically
conditions treatments to focus on small diameter
trees, brush and surface fuels.
Support
for the Framework
Our rough estimate of the overall costs starting
with the CASPO Technical Report in 1992, including
all the planning efforts, the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project, and the final two years
of work to analyze and complete the Framework
plan is approximately $25 to $30 million dollars.
There has been massive public, agency, and
political support for the Forest Service decision.
During the summer and fall of 2001 nearly
all the major daily papers in California recommended
the Framework decision be upheld. Senator
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was a strong supporter
of the plan through this period and, in what
was a surprise to many, Senator Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA) wrote USDA Agricultural Secretary Ann
Veneman on September 20, 2001, stating she
felt the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Act could go forward as amended by the Framework
decision.
Senator Feinstein always maintained she would
follow what the science and scientists said
about how to manage the Sierra Nevada. She
came to understand that significant, positive
fuels-reduction work could be accomplished
without cutting trees greater than 20 inches
in diameter and she was therefore accepting
of the Framework decision, although it meant
reductions in logging large trees on the national
forests under the QLG Act.
Congressman George Miller (D-CA), along with
the majority of House Democrats, repeatedly
requested the Forest Service Chief and USDA
to support Powell’s decision and begin
constructive work after a decade of planning.
Members of the California Senate and Assembly,
many major cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Oakland) along with Nevada County, local businesses
and the State Resources Agency (in its comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Framework plan) recommended increased
protection for the mountain range. Of the
47,000 public and agency comments on the Draft
Framework EIS, more than 35,000 cards, letters
and detailed comments asked for increased,
strong protections in the final decision.
In April 2001, 234 appeals were filed with
the Chief of the Forest Service Dale Bosworth,
largely by industry and “wise use”
groups and individuals protesting the increased
restrictions on logging medium-sized and old
growth trees. Although the great majority
of appeals were frivolous protests, the Sierra
Nevada Forest Protection Campaign (including
the Sierra Club) intervened in support
of the Forest Service on seven of the
Framework appeals. The Chief’s decision
to reject all appeals was published on November
16, 2001.
In October 2001, Regional Forester Brad Powell
was removed from his position and Jack Blackwell,
a 30-year veteran from the Intermountain Region,
was named as his replacement. In November,
Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth fully affirmed
the Sierra Nevada Framework Record of Decision
and the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
and denied all issues in each of the 234 appeals.
However, he also included in his Appeal Decision
Summary Letter a clear indication that he
wanted to “review” key aspects of
Powell’s decision.
Review
and Regression
In December 2001, Jack Blackwell, the new
Regional Forester who replaced Brad Powell,
issued a new “Action Plan” to review
the Framework decision. He proceeded to broaden
the review to include the whole administrative
record, effects on grazing interests (not
grazing impacts), effects to recreation interests,
and a proposal to produce a plan amendment
to implement the Quincy Library Group Act
without environmental protections.
The Sierra Club’s position is that the
Sierra Nevada Framework is the minimum level
of resource protection necessary in the near
term. With the owl population declining at
7 to 11 percent per year and the fisher hanging
on by a thread in the southern Sierra, increasing
logging levels in suitable habitat is a legally
and scientifically flawed direction for the
agency to pursue.
Current
status
The Framework review was completed in March
of 2003, with predictable results: recommendations
to eliminate ancient forest reserves and allow
much more intensive logging of trees larger
than 20” in diameter. The rationale for
this gutting of protection is to “reduce
wildfires,” although no wildfire experts
suggest cutting large trees is the key to
reducing fires or their intensity. Rather,
the Bush administration has been blunt about
its intention to use the revenue from cutting
large trees to pay for removing smaller trees
and brush—this is like destroying the
forest to save it. The result will be a forest
policy indistinguishable from the overcutting
of the 1980s, the very abuses that led to
the Framework plan in the first place.
These recommendations will be incorporated
into a Draft Supplemental EIS in early June.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
declined, in February 2003, to list the California
spotted owl as an endangered species...based
upon the protections included in the original
Framework. The Forest Service has also undertaken
a “meta-analysis” of all the existing
Sierra Nevada spotted owl population data,
and has concluded that any declines in population
may be accounted for by weather and prey fluctuations,
not by habitat loss and degradation. This
is all despite the fact that of several Sierra
owl habitat populations studied, only one
is stable: the one in Sequoia/Kings Canyon
National Park...also the only one not affected
by roadbuilding and logging over the past
decade.
- Send in your official comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Click
here for a sample letter and contact information
for the Forest Service.
- Write a letter to the editor of your local
newspaper. Call the office to find out how
to submit a letter -- or most papers today
have quick and easy ways to send letters in
over the Internet. Just search on any search
engine for the name of your paper. Click on
its “opinion” or “editorial”
section, and you’ll soon be led to directions
on how to send a letter to the editor.
- Not only is the Bush administration unravelling
the forest protections in the Sierra Framework
plan, it also proposes to log large trees, including
younger Giant Sequoias, inside Giant Sequoia
National Monument! Learn
more about this.
- For more information, contact: Barbara
Boyle, (916) 557-1100 ext. 105; or Craig
Thomas, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign,
(530) 622-8718.
Up to
Top
Photo above courtesy
Tom Ransburg.
|
