Forwarding
this from alt.forestry, uploaded by Larry Harrell a forestry
tech in CA, who also happens to work all over the country for
the USFS. Larry's a good guy, I think, but since he works for
the Forest Circus, he's going to defend their policies, by and
large. I haven't really studied the issues out west, so I can't
comment.
*************
Joe Zorzin
http://forestmeister.com
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a
revolutionary act"
George Orwell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Harrell"
Newsgroups: alt.forestry,sci.environment,bionet.agroforestry
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Federal Forestry Events in California (Long)
| |
Plenty
has happened in the last week regarding forestry issues
in
California. The log-awaited amendment to the Sierra
Nevada Framework
has been finally presented to the public. Also, the
Giant Sequoia
National Monument management plan is being displayed for
public
examination.
First off is the amendment to the Sierra Nevada
Framework and here's
what the Regional Forester sent to us employees:
Dear Forest Service folks,
It gives me great pleasure to make two related
announcements today: a
decision to improve the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment, and an
exciting new initiative, the “Forests With a Future”
Campaign, which we’ll use to implement the improved
plan to
protect old growth forests, wildlife habitat, and local
communities
against catastrophic wildfires.
First, I’d like to thank all of you for your effort
and
investment in the process. Our work is very challenging,
and matters
a great deal to the various groups of people whom we
serve. The Review
was a complex task and I’m proud of how the Forest
Service
performed it. The sum total of all your expertise, good
judgment and
diligence has put the Service in the right direction.
I’m counting on your redoubled professionalism and
commitment,
because now we must move forward to achieve results.
One painful reminder we’ve experienced over the last
year is
that catastrophic wildfire will come again to the Sierra
Nevada
– and that we at the Forest Service, as guardians of
the forest,
must act to assure its long-term welfare.
That’s why we must focus on the proactive measures of
the
“Forests With A Future” campaign. The name has been
chosen to emphasize the urgency with which we must act
to preserve
old-growth trees, wildlife and local communities from
catastrophic
fires. This campaign reflects the core values of the
Forest Service,
including pride in our expertise and a proactive
approach to our work
and explaining it to our key constituencies.
The forests of the future, we envision, must be more
like the forests
of the past. Our goal is to reduce the level of
explosive fuels at
strategic sites to the point where fire, burning slow
and low, can
once again be a natural part of the forest ecosystem.
Reducing the
fuels will be done in ways that adapt methods to the
needs of each
forest area, using a combination of professional
judgment and
monitoring.
“Forests with a Future” is a campaign run on
“forest
time,” so that within the next fifty years we project
a dramatic
doubling of old-growth forests, and near doubling of
wildlife habitat,
including the spotted owl. We also project a more than
30% reduction
in catastrophic wildfires, and improved protection for
nearly 100% of
local communities faced by these life-threatening
events.
Now we all must step forward to act and support this
campaign. The
next ten years are a critical period, and the next three
years
extremely critical. As I’ve said several times
recently to
different gatherings of Forest Service people, it’s no
longer
business as usual. That’s why I’ve written this
letter to
highlight the urgency of what we’ll be working on as
an
organization during the coming years. I look forward to
your
feedback, questions, and participation in this next, and
most
important, phase of our Forest Service careers.
Sincerely,
/S/ JACK
JACK A. BLACKWELL
Regional Forester
Comment by poster: And here's one newspaper's view of
what the
amendment will bring.
January 23, 2004 The Sacramento Bee
Altered Sierra forest plan unveiled
The new blueprint will cut fire risk, officials say, but
foes claim it
is driven by logging interests.
By Dorothy Korber -- Bee Staff Writer -
The U.S. Forest Service rolled out revisions Thursday to
its plan for
managing 11 million acres of Sierra Nevada woodlands,
saying the
changes will reduce wildfire danger and protect
old-growth forests.
Those contentions were instantly rebutted by
environmental activists,
who say the new plan is driven by logging interests and
will gut
ancient woodlands.
The revisions amend the Sierra Nevada Framework, a
forest management
plan approved in 2001. The changes aim to head off the
kind of
catastrophic fires that swept Southern California last
year, said Jack
Blackwell, the Forest Service's chief forester for its
Pacific
Southwest Region.
He called the original Sierra Nevada Framework overly
restrictive.
"The rules were incredibly complex," he said.
"They were just
impossible in terms of effective fire suppression, and
there is
tremendous danger in these densely crowded
forests."
Speaking at a Sacramento press conference, Blackwell
unveiled what he
called an action campaign -- "Forests with a
Future" -- that allows
for removing fire-prone undergrowth on 115,000 acres
each year, as
well as the logging of selected trees up to 30 inches in
diameter.
The lumber from those big trees will help underwrite the
costs of
thinning the Sierra's overgrown forests, Blackwell said,
as well as
supporting the state's struggling timber business.
Previously, the framework limited logging to trees 12
inches and
under. Blackwell said the timber harvest will be triple
what it was
under the original framework.
Still, he said, the number of trees cut will be
relatively small.
"There are 90 million trees between 20 and 30
inches in diameter in
these forests, and we plan to thin just one-fifth of 1
percent of
them," Blackwell said.
He projected that the action campaign -- and the changes
to the Sierra
Nevada Framework -- would reduce the acres burned by
severe wildfires
by more than 30 percent over the next 50 years. At the
same time, he
said, forest communities will be protected from
devastating blazes,
and the acreage of old-growth forests will double.
Environmental activists attending the press conference
scoffed at
Blackwell's projections and questioned the motives of
the Forest
Service. They were especially outraged by plans to cut
large trees.
"The ancient forests of the Sierra Nevada are now
threatened when we
thought they were safe," said Barbara Boyle of the
Sierra Club. "This
is a radical revision to the Sierra framework, a drastic
change."
Jay Watson of the Wilderness Society agreed.
"The original framework recognized old-growth
forests as a special
resource, 4 million acres out of the 11 million,"
Watson said. "It was
treated with a soft touch. The new plan abandons that --
the
philosophy now is that one size fits all. But you can't
make sweeping
statements about what's best for a diverse mountain
range. They're
homogenizing the forest."
Others questioned the scientific foundation underlying
the Forest
Service's new plan.
"There's no fire scientist on Earth who would say
that there is
justification for cutting a 30-inch tree," said
Craig Thomas of the
Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign. "It's
strictly being done
for the money."
Susannah Churchill of Environment California also said
private profit
is the underlying motive for the changes. "Under
all the pretty
rhetoric, the basis of the new plan is to provide the
timber companies
with bigger trees to log," she said.
Blackwell denied that timber interests dictated the
amendment,
although he acknowledged that revenue from logging was
an important
component.
"Revenue is not the driving factor here,"
Blackwell said. "It's the
fire danger. What happened in Southern California last
fall is really
illustrative of what could happen here. What more
wake-up call do you
need?"
A spokesman for a timber trade group described as
"ludicrous" the idea
that loggers were driving the Forest Service plan.
"There is this image of a monolithic timber
industry," said David A.
Bischel, president of the California Forestry
Association. "Well,
there are eight small sawmills left on the west side of
the Sierra.
The last one on the east side is closing. Truth is,
we're very close
to not being able to manage the amount of timber this
plan would
provide."
Each side -- the Forest Service and the
environmentalists -- claim
that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports its position.
Mike Chrisman, the governor's resources secretary, said
he does
endorse the Forest Service's commitment to fire
suppression, but he
has some reservations about the amendment to the Sierra
Nevada
Framework.
"We commend the Forest Service in initiating the
Forest with a Future
campaign," Chrisman said in an interview Thursday.
"We're really
committed to reducing the fire risk to communities in
the Sierra.
"That said, the governor has expressed his support
for the existing
Sierra Nevada Framework, and he opposes changes not made
in an open,
collaborative process. We're concerned that this
amendment was done
with very little substantive collaboration with the
state between the
draft and final form."
Chrisman said he wasn't ready to comment on the
controversy over
logging large trees. "We're still taking a close
look at the final
framework," he said. "We'll be working to try
to improve it."
Comment by poster: I welcome this added flexibility to
restore and
protect our National Forests in California. The old plan
was fatally
flawed with too much emphasis on burning. In the past,
USFS fire crews
had trouble meeting the old burning targets. The SNF
more than doubled
those burning targets and presented an impossible task
for fire crews.
The "burning window" is incredibly small in
normal years. There are
not enough burn days available to the Forest service to
accomplish
those unrealistic burning targets in the old version of
SNF. Who cares
if Ahhhhnold is for or against the new plans.
"Preservationists" see
those up to 30" diameter trees as "large"
trees, and prefer that we
use the old limit of 12" diameter and less. A
30" diameter tree in the
Sierra Nevada is a decidedly average-sized tree.
"Preservationists"
also think that we're going to cut ALL those 20-30"
diameter trees.
IMHO, quite the opposite should be happening. The worst
of those
20-30" diameter trees should be cut, leaving plenty
of superior trees
which will become our future old growth in a forest
which is drought
resistent, bug resistent, fire resistent, more
"natural" and vigorous.
Here's the story on the Giant Sequoia National Monument
management
plan:
January 22, 2004 Land Letter
Giant Sequoia plan allows old-growth logging
by Dan Berman
The Forest Service unveiled its plan to manage one of
the country's
newest national monuments Friday, allowing some logging
of old-growth
giant sequoia stands but primarily using prescribed
burns to prevent
catastrophic wildfires.
Although the plan for central California's Giant Sequoia
National
Monument reduced the amount of logging allowed in the
draft proposal,
environmentalists are unenthusiastic, saying the plan is
too vague and
still allows too much logging of old-growth stands.
Former President Clinton created the monument in April
2000, much to
the disappointment of Tulare County officials, who said
it was too big
and violated the 1906 Antiquities Act. A federal court
disagreed, and
the Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving
the
327,800-acre monument intact.
The monument contains 38 groves of ancient sequoia
trees, some of the
oldest and largest trees on the planet, and
environmentalists are
concerned about provisions allowing for logging of trees
up to 30
inches in diameter.
Jay Watson, California regional director of the
Wilderness Society,
said that while the plan states it emphasizes prescribed
burning to
treat overgrown forests, the final version calls for
30,000 acres less
of prescribed burns over the first decade of the plan.
"It's hard to really understand what's actually
going to happen on the
ground in the monument," Watson said. The plan
"gives the Forest
Service an awful lot of flexibility to do the wrong
thing in the wrong
places."
According to the Forest Service's record of decision and
final
environmental impact statement (EIS), the focus for the
first 20 years
of the plan is to protect communities in the
wildland-urban interface
and the sequoia groves from wildfires, such as the 2002
fire in the
Sequoia National Forest that burned 150,000 acres and
cost nearly $150
million to fight.
The prescribed fires and timber cutting will "
promote establishment
of young giant sequoias, vegetative diversity, and
resistance to
catastrophic fire," according to the Forest
Service. "The result will
be a landscape that is more stable and resilient to
environmental
changes."
Comment by poster: I think that
"preservationists" don't want the
government to have any flexibility to use all the tools
needed to
restore and protect sensitive forests. Currently, the
monument is
riddled with bug killed trees and the McNally fire area
is largely
untouched, as far as being restored. Most of the roads
within the
monument have dead trees along them, threatening to fall
on tourists
and blocking roads to emergency traffic.
"Preservationists" are so
desperate to stop any timber cutting that they are
claiming that Giant
Sequoias will be cut for timber. While the wood is
strong, it is too
brittle for any building uses and is worthless to the
timber industry.
Giant Sequoia groves are priceless and should be
protected.
Personally, I think that all equipment and logging
should be excluded
from the actual Giant Sequoia groves. There's a good
chance that I
will be working within the monument at sometime in the
future and I
guarantee that I will do my best to gently restore those
stands within
the monument, using the best of today's science and
research.
Larry, a true environmentalist |
|