Sierra Club
Redwood Chapter Newsletter
|
Bush Unraveling Sierra Forests Protection Comment Deadline Barbara Boyle, Sierra Club field staff | |
|
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:
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. 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. Tell the Forest Service to keep the Framework in Place Write a letter to the Forest Service and ask the agency to implement the Sierra Nevada Framework as agreed to in 2001. Use the sample text below and add your own comments. Then mail, fax or email your comment to the addresses provide below. Sample Letter
Regional Forester Jack Blackwell:
Don't turn back the clock on Sierra forest protections! The
Sierra Framework keeps the right balance between reducing the
risk of catastrophic fire and protecting wildlife and ecosystems.
California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and other wildlife are a part
of our heritage. Make sure northern Sierra forests protect
wildlife and retain the Framework protections in that region! Please submit my official comments in favor of the "S1--No
Action" (Keep the Framework Intact) alternative in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Implement the Framework! [Add another paragraph or two with your personal comments and concerns.
The Forest Service says it will only address "substantive comments."] Sincerely,
Send comments TO ARRIVE NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 12, 2003!
For more details, check out the Forest Service web pages: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/draft-seis/index.htm. If you have time............. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. 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 youšll soon be led to directions on how to send a letter to the editor. |