June 6, 2003 The Sacramento Bee

Sierra plan calls for more logging
Critics decry a loss of owl habitat, but Forest Service says the
impact will be minimal and short-term.

By Stuart Leavenworth

Putting some flesh on a proposal that has triggered months of rhetoric
but few hard details, the U.S. Forest Service on Thursday released a
372-page management plan for the Sierra Nevada that would nearly
triple logging, with most of it coming in the Plumas and Lassen
national forests near Quincy.

The plan, a revision of a Clinton-era blueprint for the Sierra,
proposes to reduce habitat for the California spotted owl so the
Forest Service can more aggressively thin forests to reduce wildfires.

Forest Service officials say the revisions will save taxpayers $27
million yearly, because they can use revenues from logging 20-to
30-inch-thick trees to offset costs of removing brush and unmarketable
timber. But the extra logging would come at the expense of the spotted
owl and other wildlife, which would lose habitat under the Bush
administration plan, according to the Forest Service's own analysis.

Environmentalists say the administration is risking a legal showdown
over the owl, which could be added to the nation's endangered species
list if its habitat is significantly compromised. Such a listing could
lead to court-ordered logging restrictions on both public and private
land, as happened in the Pacific Northwest during the early 1990s when
the northern spotted owl received federal protection.

"It is looking pretty ugly," said Craig Thomas, director of the Sierra
Nevada Protection Campaign. "The revenues (from extra logging) come at
the price of very intense, short-term impacts on wildlife. The Forest
Service thinks that is acceptable. We do not."

Forest Service officials, however, say that only about 6 percent of
spotted owl nesting habitat will be hurt by the proposed logging and
thinning. After 20 or 30 years, they say, the forests will be much
more resilient to fires, and owl habitat will increase.

"We are predicting there will be short-term effects (on the owl), but
they will not be significant," said Steve Eubanks, supervisor of the
Tahoe National Forest who helped draft the 372-page supplemental
environmental impact statement. "We are trying to prevent the
higher-intensity fires that can replace stands of trees. No one can
argue those fires aren't a threat."

At issue are 11 million acres of the Sierra, California's largest
mountain range and the source of three-fourths of its drinking water.
Decades of fire suppression and intermittent drought have left
portions of the Sierra thick with spindly trees that are vulnerable to
big blazes.

At the same time, decades of intensive logging -- which reached its
peak in the early 1980s -- have removed many of the big trees and
dense forestry canopy that are favored by owls for nesting.

Before leaving office, the Clinton administration approved a plan that
slashed commercial logging in the Sierra to rebuild old-growth
forests. Sawmill owners and some rural residents protested the plan,
prompting the incoming Bush administration to order a review of the
framework, which has lasted more than two years at a cost of $3
million.

Under a preferred alternative the Forest Service is touting, timber
sales would be increased to 448 million board feet from 157 million
yearly, enough to build 45,000 homes. Nearly two-thirds of that
logging would occur in the Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe forests. The
Plumas is the location of the disputed and stalled Quincy Library
Group project, a pilot program that aimed to help local sawmills and
reduce fire threats.

In addition, the Forest Service proposes giving district rangers more
latitude in salvaging fire-scorched trees, a change that could allow
companies to harvest several million more board feet each year.

Because of expected timber revenues, the Forest Service projects that
it can thin more than 100,000 acres yearly at a cost to the U.S.
Treasury of $19 million, compared with $46 million under the original
framework.

"This would allow us to stretch our budget dollars," Regional Forester
Jack Blackwell said in a statement. In a concession to
environmentalists, Blackwell wants 75 percent of all thinning to occur
around communities.

Environmentalists say the Forest Service currently has the ability to
cut down 30-inch trees and thin smaller ones near Sierra towns, but
has dragged its feet to undermine the original Sierra framework.

"Instead of doing that work, they have spent $3 million to revamp the
plan," said Barbara Boyle, senior regional representative of the
Sierra Club.

Boyle said she is also flabbergasted the Forest Service plans to allow
additional salvage logging for fire restoration.

"What is being restored here?" she asked. "Is it the forest ecosystem,
or it the local timber industry?"

According to the Forest Service, its revamp of the Sierra framework
will generate $57 million for the timber industry, about $19 million
more than the original plan. Logging employment would double to 1,894
jobs and the wood chips available for biomass-fueled electricity
plants would increase by 43 percent.

Timber harvests, however, aren't the only focus of the framework
revision. The agency also wants to revise the document to allow more
cattle grazing, even in meadows that are habitat for threatened
amphibians. But logging remains the core point of contention, as it
has for decades.

David Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association, says
the revisions provide some encouragement for the state's shrinking
timber industry. He says threats to the spotted owls are exaggerated,
and claims the Forest Service could easily allow more logging.

He said he'd like to see the agency designate specific parts of the
Sierra for timber production, something it doesn't do now. Providing
that designation, he said, "would provide us come certainty about the
future."

The Forest Service report can be found at www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/.


Comment by poster: If wild areas are called wilderness, couldn't
timber production areas be called "timberness"? G When the revisions
take effect, shouldn't the Bush Administration take action to break up
timber monopolies and immediately make Federal timber more valuable?

Larry, forest sculptor