By David Graves
Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign
and
Barbara Boyle
Sierra Club CA/NV Senior Regional Representative

On January 22nd, the U.S. Forest Service announced sweeping revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework, which directs the management of 11.5 million acres of California's national forest lands. The revisions will nearly triple the amount of logging by allowing the cutting of 30" diameter trees throughout the forest and limit safeguards for ancient forests, water and wildlife all over the Sierra.

The Forest Service released the final plan for the revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework through a new plan named "Forests with A Future." In a super-slick presentation, the Forest Service attempted to disguise the ugly truth of these changes with computer animation, video shots of already protected wilderness areas accompanied by bluegrass music, and glossy press packets. Despite their attempt to cast the revisions as "a major new initiative to protect Sierra Nevada old-growth forests, wildlife and communities against catastrophic wildfire", the real problems with the plan are plainly evident. This plan would be more aptly named "No Tree Left Behind."

The 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) for the "Forests with a Future" campaign is nothing short of a throwback to the California Spotted Owl Guidelines of 1993 - and a return to the logging practices of 10 years ago and before. The Forest Service maintains that logging and selling large trees can offset the costs of reducing the fire risk. Actually, while timber sales may generate short-term revenue, there is a much greater cost in the long-term. The destruction of old growth forests, damage to at-risk wildlife habitat, water quality impacts, and loss of scenic values that negatively impacts tourism and recreation are what is in store for the "Forests of the Future". All these will negatively impact the local and statewide economies.

If Mr. Blackwell really wants to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, the Forest Service should follow the advice of leading fire ecologists and focus on reducing the most flammable fuels in the forest, known as surface and ladder fuels. These are low brush and very small diameter trees, best removed through prescribed fire or hand removal. Logging can actually increase fire severity by leaving behind highly combustible logging slash, while loss of tree canopy encourages the growth of flammable brush, increases wind speed and air temperature and decreases humidity in the forest, exacerbating fire conditions. Further, comparing the Sierra forests to those of Southern California is highly misleading. The ecosystems are different, the fire regimes and causes are different (Santa Ana winds!), and the bark beetle infestation in Southern California has no parallel in the Sierra.

The Forest Service claims that the new plan will reduce the risk of fires to communities located in and near the forests of the Sierra Nevada. Again, the cutting of large trees deep in the forest does nothing to protect these communities. In fact, the new plan reduces the funds spent on protecting these communities by 25% and instead uses that money to cut down large fire resistant trees in the general forest.

While cutting down 420 million board feet under the new plan, the Forest Service also asserts that the revisions will protect wildlife. In fact, the revisions significantly weaken grazing limitations and water quality protections, and increase the risk of stream bank and meadow erosion. This has the effect of destroying the habitat of the willow flycatcher, the Yosemite toad, and other aquatic species. Furthermore, increased logging of large diameter trees, combined with clear cutting allowed under the reactivated Quincy Logging plan, will likely cause some species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act, such as the California spotted owl, fisher and the marten.