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

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


Dream on Larry. This administration loves monopolys and in small timber
towns, youre pretty much stuck with a single bidder during bad markets.
On the Forestry side - what would be left after a "thinning" that
removed everything up to that diameter? Are we talking about harvest
inside the owl circles? Most of these are roadless areas - that's why
they were left as owl habitat...

mhagen wrote:

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



Dream on Larry. This administration loves monopolys and in small timber
towns, youre pretty much stuck with a single bidder during bad markets.
On the Forestry side - what would be left after a "thinning" that
removed everything up to that diameter? Are we talking about harvest
inside the owl circles? Most of these are roadless areas - that's why
they were left as owl habitat...


Here's what it says in the FAQ:

# What are the effects of the preferred alternative on wildlife and the
environment?

The preferred alternative ...

* Protects all trees 30 inches in diameter and larger. Protects
most medium sized trees in treatment areas by retaining 40% of the basal
area in the largest trees even if they are less than 30 inches in diameter.
* Sets a canopy cover goal of 50% in treatment areas, and allows
reductions to 40% based on local conditions and analysis.
* Maintains existing California spotted owl Protected Activity
Centers (PACs), requires owl surveys, establishes new PACS for newly
discovered owl sites, and limits fuels treatments in PACs. Where fuels
treatments occur in PACs, the treated acres will be replaced by adding
adjacent untreated acres of comparable quality to the PAC.
* Increases the estimated amount of future (tenth decade) old
forest habitat by reducing severity of wildfires that would otherwise
destroy large old trees and old forest ecosystems. In the short-term
(second decade), the preferred alternative will provide 6% less nesting
habitat for California spotted owls and 3% more overall habitat for owls.
* Late season grazing in willow flycatcher habitat reduces the risk
of disturbance to the estimated 90% of nests in which the young leave
the nest before August 15. The preferred alternative directs restoration
of degraded willow flycatcher habitat; this measure not in the current
direction.


Sounds like an ambitious but workable plan.
MH

mhagen wrote in message ...
mhagen wrote:

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



Dream on Larry. This administration loves monopolys and in small timber
towns, youre pretty much stuck with a single bidder during bad markets.
On the Forestry side - what would be left after a "thinning" that
removed everything up to that diameter? Are we talking about harvest
inside the owl circles? Most of these are roadless areas - that's why
they were left as owl habitat...


A guy can dream, can't he?


Here's what it says in the FAQ:

# What are the effects of the preferred alternative on wildlife and the
environment?

The preferred alternative ...

* Protects all trees 30 inches in diameter and larger. Protects
most medium sized trees in treatment areas by retaining 40% of the basal
area in the largest trees even if they are less than 30 inches in diameter.

Same thing we did from 1993 til 2000. Of course we would never take
ALL trees below 30 inches dbh. Even in those larger trees from 22" to
29.9", we wanted to save the best of those "moneymakers" for our
future forests. Personally, I would even extend that limit to 36" with
severe limitations on the kinds of trees that could be harvested.

* Sets a canopy cover goal of 50% in treatment areas, and allows
reductions to 40% based on local conditions and analysis.

Crown closure is very important to goshawks and spotted owls, which do
occupy the same kinds of areas.

* Maintains existing California spotted owl Protected Activity
Centers (PACs), requires owl surveys, establishes new PACS for newly
discovered owl sites, and limits fuels treatments in PACs. Where fuels
treatments occur in PACs, the treated acres will be replaced by adding
adjacent untreated acres of comparable quality to the PAC.

PACs often have the largest amount of underbrush and flammability. I
see this as a "flexibility" issue, weighing the need to protect
habitat with the danger of losing the area to catastrophic fire.

* Increases the estimated amount of future (tenth decade) old
forest habitat by reducing severity of wildfires that would otherwise
destroy large old trees and old forest ecosystems. In the short-term
(second decade), the preferred alternative will provide 6% less nesting
habitat for California spotted owls and 3% more overall habitat for owls.

Remember, that once a PAC is burned up, the owls and goshawks have no
alternative but to try and establish themselves in a much less
desirable habitat not already occupied by another nesting pair. This
is where the birds can and will adapt, or die trying.

* Late season grazing in willow flycatcher habitat reduces the risk
of disturbance to the estimated 90% of nests in which the young leave
the nest before August 15. The preferred alternative directs restoration
of degraded willow flycatcher habitat; this measure not in the current
direction.


Sounds like an ambitious but workable plan.
MH

Also, be aware that no logging in nesting sites will occur during the
nesting periods of both goshawks and spotted owls, requiring intensive
surveys beforehand. The "Limited Operating Period" bars logging
activities in or near active nest areas until the young has fledged.

This plan returns to the self-imposed rules the USFS used before the
signing of the fatally flawed Framework. This gives us the best
opportunity to practice eco-forestry in an economic way, helping to
counterbalance the costs of "service contracts" in which we pay
loggers to remove submerchantable fuels. Finally, when all the
mechanical work is done, fire can be reintroduced more safely and the
forests can be gently "managed" back into a more natural state.

All you "preservationists" can feel free to read up and comment here,
or even officially to the USFS, if you feel like it. Just be aware
that this isn't an election or initiative and your comments do not
count as "votes". Also, you'd better include some scientific content
or else your comments might just find their way to the "circular
file".

Larry, Federal eco-forestry rules!

(mhagen) writes:

in small timber
towns, youre pretty much stuck with a single bidder during bad markets.

Or none. I have a friend who is developing a retirement home on the
coast north of Brookings. He has about 5 acres of big old spruce that he
wants to log, so he hired a forester and put it out for bid in 2002.
There were no bids. They put it out for bid again in 2003, and got a bid
from the one mill in the area, but the mill would not guarantee that they
would take the trees.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc