Action Alert Archive

May 2007

Wildlife Population and Habitat Monitoring Program is Under Attack by the Forest Service

What they are trying to do

The Forest Service is attempting to minimize their forest monitoring requirements by altering the management indicator species (MIS) lists that are tracked across all Sierra Nevada National Forests. The 2001 and 2004 Framework requires the Forest Service monitor effects that Forest Service projects have on the long-term viability of these species and the long-term health of the habitats that they depend upon for survival.

We are deeply concerned that the revision of existing monitoring requirements will have significant environmental consequences and will weaken existing protection for species and the biological diversity of the Sierra Nevada. It is important to note that the needs of forest health, ecosystem integrity, and species survival is not regarded as a primary purpose of this proposed amendment to a program which if followed and acted upon diligently as the 2001 Framework recommended, there would likely be monitoring data available addressing impacts from Forest Service management on species of importance and the habitats they depend upon.

The history of monitoring

Appendix E of the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework required that the Forest Service develop a monitoring program for a wide variety of essential and important wildlife species within the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada. This important list of MIS within Appendix E survived the Bush Administration's dismantling of the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework. The existing monitoring requirements for MIS and related species are an essential part of land management plans and provide a valuable safety net to reduce the likelihood of plan implementation having significant adverse environmental impacts.

The Forest Service, in response to a recent court ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has stepped up their efforts to further dismantle protections for MIS and species at risk in the Sierra Nevada.

Why we must act now

We can not allow the Forest Service to weaken protections for vitally important MIS or the habitat and population monitoring requirements. Without a robust, scientifically valid and enforceable monitoring program in place there is virtually no way to measure the effects of Forest Service actions within areas of important habitat that serve as the last bastions of hope for the survival of many of the species and the ecosystem they depend on.

National Forest Planning Information – Get Informed Now

The Forest Service is beginning the forest plan revision process on 3 national forests in the Sierra Nevada, the Modoc, Lake Tahoe Basin and the Sequoia National Forest.

The new Bush Administration revised Planning Rule and proposed NEPA review greatly weaken the regulations and environmental review process of forest plans.

Although we believe Earthjustice will be successful in overturning the 2005 Forest Planning Rule, conservation organizations need to get up to speed on the new process and engage the current national forests undergoing revisions.

    Visit Links Below
  • The Forest Service 2005 NFMA Planning Directives
  • National Forest Management Act-Forest Service Website

Also Read Wildlaw's great NFMA White Paper (652KB PDF)

Forest Service Caves to Timber Industry Pressure - Triples Logging Levels on Stanislaus National Forest Under the Guise of Fire Risk Reduction

The Sierra Forest Legacy continues to lead the effort to prioritize thinning projects near communities to help keep people safe. We are also working hard to stop the Bush Administration plan for Sierra Nevada forests that will gut sensible protections for wildlife and water quality from damaging logging projects far from Sierra communities. The Bush plan is currently being challenged by the Attorney General of California as well as the Sierra Forest Legacy. Click here to read "State sues over plan to boost Sierra logging Forest Service failed to disclose crucial data, Lockyer says".

Now, the USFS has caved into pressure by extreme politicians and corporate timber interests to radically increase logging on the Stanislaus National Forest. The Stanislaus plan prioritizes logging in remote areas over responsible fuel reduction ar href="http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/staound communities. Click here to read the News Release at the USFS website.

The Forest Service, under political pressure from the timber industry, will be diverting critical fuel reduction funds from many forest communities in coming years to increase logging in remote areas. In the four forests of Southern California alone, there exists a community fuel reduction backlog of nearly 46 million dollars that Senator Dianne Feinstein has indicated should be a priority for the agency. Click here to read her letter to the Forest Service, (63KB PDF). The failure to prioritize community protection on just these four forests is leaving an estimated 6.8 million citizens at risk there. Unfortunately, corporate timber industry interests are trumping community protection in densely populated areas throughout the region.

Now, the Bush Administration is proposing additional logging increases under the guise of "fire risk reduction" on forests across the west. The first plan under this new scheme to increase logging is for the Stanislaus National Forest adjacent to Yosemite National Park. It will effectively triple logging levels on that forest above the levels proposed previously by the Bush Administration to 30/+ million board feet per year. Let's put that into perspective- a board foot is a piece of wood that is one foot square and one inch thick. This plan will cut enough board feet that if they were laid end to end would stretch the length of 100,000,000 football fields, or a piece of wood that would go from Sacramento, CA to New York City and back! The number of fully-loaded log trucks needed to transport this amount of saw-logs from the forest if parked bumper to bumper would stretch nearly 80 miles or from the state capitol in Sacramento down interstate 80 to the Regional Forest Service Office in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Reducing fire risks is primarily about treating the brush, limbs and small trees on the forest floor. Commercial timber comes from trees that are large, naturally fire resistant and provide the shade that keeps the forest cool and moist. Since logging was identified in a Congressional study of the Sierra as the largest human caused contributor to wildfire, can tripling the number of large, fire-resistant trees cut every year honestly be put forward as a fire risk reduction plan? Click here to read John Buckley's analysis for more information, 55KB PDF, or check out our "Take Action" section to help us keep community protection, not corporate logging company profits a priority for the Forest Service.

California Attorney General and The Sierra Forest Legacy with Other Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework

In January of 2004, the Forest Service made revisions to the landmark 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework, effectively removing the most important and ecologically protective measures of the plan. After numerous comments, over 6000 appeals, and unparalleled public opposition to the changes, the Chief of the Forest Service still approved the changes. Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated, "With no basis in science and no new facts, the Bush Administration has jettisoned the product of more than 10 years of study, public participation and consensus building." Representing the State of California, he filed suit to stop the revisions. The Sierra Forest Legacy, along with the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and The Wilderness Society also filed suit. These groups are represented by Earthjustice, a non-profit public interest environmental law firm based in Oakland, and the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program (ELP).

The Sierra Forest Legacy and the California Attorney General both filed lawsuits to stop the revisions to the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth affirmed the revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework on November 18, 2004, denying the appeals submitted by well over 6000 people, including the Sierra Forest Legacy, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, California Trout, Friends of the River, Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. By affirming the revisions, Bosworth allowed the tripling of logging across the Sierra Nevada, including operations in old forest emphasis areas. The plan would likely lead to a further decline in populations of the California Spotted Owl, Pacific Fisher, American Marten, and other old forest species.

Many projects have already been proposed under the damaging 2004 Framework. One such project, the Basin Group Selection Project, involves, among other things, small clear cuts and individual tree selection timber harvest in portions of a 38,893-acre area. The Basin Project authorizes approximately 800 one-to-two-acre clear cuts totaling 1,215 acres in which trees up to 30 inches in diameter will be removed, in addition to individual tree-selection timber harvest on approximately 80 acres. Numerous declining wildlife species occur or potentially occur in the Basin Project area and will be harmed by the project. For example, the small clear cuts planned under the Basin Project is likely to impact 24 California spotted owl nest sites and cause 943 acres of owl nesting habitat to be useless, as well as 247 acres of foraging habitat. The Basin Project will also result in the logging of habitat that is potentially important for the Pacific fisher and American marten, two species that have experienced dramatic declines in population in recent years.

In order to stop this and other similar projects, the environmental groups filed their lawsuit. Read the environmental groups' Framework complaint, 35 page, 168KB PDF.

Read the California Attorney General's Complaint, 16 page, 880KB PDF.

Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan

The Sierra Forest Legacy along with the Sierra Club, Tule River Conservancy, Earth Island Institute, Sequoia Forestkeeper, and the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit on Thursday, January 27th, to prevent implementation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan. The Giant Sequoia National Monument contains approximately two-thirds of all of the giant sequoia trees in the world. The Forest Service released the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan last year that allows extensive logging and harm to the fragile wildlife within the park. These actions conflict directly with the purposes of the Monument. Despite numerous comments and appeals of this plan, on January 11, 2005, the Deputy Regional Forester of the Forest Services Pacific Southwest Region denied all administrative appeals of the plan.

On January 11, 2005, the Forest Service affirmed the Giant Sequoia National Monument Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), which determines the management direction the Forest Service will take in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, despite widespread opposition. Both the FEIS and the ROD fail, in many ways, to implement the protective purposes of the 2000 Presidential Proclamation (Proclamation) that created the Monument. The Giant Sequoia National Monument contains approximately two-thirds of all of the giant sequoia trees in the world and is important habitat for many fragile species.

One of these species, the Pacific Fisher, relies on the Giant Sequoia National Monument to provide important habitat. However, the Fisher's declining population could eventually be forced to extinction under the current Monument management plan due to logging in their habitat. Disturbances allowed under the Proclamation can cause them to flee an area and become more vulnerable to predators and poachers.

This pro-logging plan is contrary to the Proclamation, which states "[r]emoval of trees, except for personal use fuel wood, from within the monument area may take place only if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety." This "so-called" management plan would arbitrarily allow trees up to 30 inches in diameter to be removed from the forest, a diameter limit that is not supported by the best available science. Instead of logging large trees to supposedly prevent fire, which is a natural part of the Monument ecosystem, the Forest Service should remove the brush, lower branches, and small diameter trees which are the most flammable materials in the forest. Removing these most flammable materials would protect the large trees that are the essential elements of the old forest ecosystem that must be protected.

Read the Giant Sequoia National Monument Complaint, 22 page, 120KB PDF.

Forest Service Chief Bosworth Affirms 2004 Revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth affirmed the revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework today, denying the appeals submitted by well over 6000 people, including the Sierra Forest Legacy, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, California Trout, Friends of the River, Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. By affirming the revisions, Bosworth allows the tripling of logging across the Sierra Nevada, including operations in old forest emphasis areas. The affirmation will also likely lead to a further decline in populations of the California Spotted Owl, Pacific Fisher, American Marten, and other old forest species.

Bosworth stated, “After reviewing the appeals, I have found that the Pacific Southwest region complied with all applicable laws, regulations and policies in amending the 2001 plan. Jack Blackwell and employees throughout California should be commended for all of their hard work.”

Despite many apparent problems with the plan identified by the appellants, Bosworth ordered only 2 changes to the plan. First, the region must reinstate the standard for plant surveys. Second, the region must further develop the plan's evaluation and adjustment requirements in the adaptive management strategy.

Under Secretary of the USDA, Mark Rey, has 15 days to decide whether or not he will conduct a discretionary review. The Chief and Mark Rey affirmed the original plan in 2001 following 10 years of work with scientists, environmentalists and other interested parties. A balanced plan that protected both communities and wildlife, the plan was hailed as a model of cooperation between conservationists and the Forest Service. However, a few months later, the Bush administration followed the advice of the timber industry and ordered the plan amended. If Mark Rey commences his own review and also affirms this decision, it is likely that the plan will end up in court.

To read the Forest Service press release, visit:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/news/2004/snfpa-upheld.html

To read the full decision, visit:
http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/2004snfpa_decision.pdf

Appeal Of The Revisions To The Sierra Nevada Framework

Despite widespread support for the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework, on January 22nd of this year, the U.S. Forest Service, responding to pressure from the Bush administration, announced sweeping revisions to the Sierra Nevada Framework. The revisions will nearly triple the amount of logging on national forest land by allowing the cutting of healthy 30-inch diameter trees throughout the forest and will limit safeguards for water and wildlife all over the Sierra. The Forest Service calls their new plan “Forests with A Future.” In a super slick presentation featuring computer animation, video shots of already protected wilderness areas, bluegrass music, and glossy press packets, the Forest Service attempted to cast the revisions as “a major new initiative to protect Sierra Nevada old-growth forests, wildlife, and communities against catastrophic wildfire.” The presentation cost the taxpayers over $100,000; the hiring of a PR firm to “spin” the new plan may have violated federal law. Furthermore, pictures passed off as evidence of the overgrown state of Sierra forests were actually taken in Montana. But besides questionable practices in the presentation of its new plan, there are many real problems with the plan itself.

The Sierra Campaign, along with many other environmental organizations, object to these changes and has filed an appeal to stop them from being implemented. Read the Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons of the Sierra Forest Legacy (604kb PDF).

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is also appealing the plan on behalf of the State of California. Read the Attorney General's Appeal of the 2004 Sierra Framework Plan (2,869kb PDF). Also, read the Attorney General's original comments on the revisions to the Framework (1,798kb PDF).

Giant Sequoia National Monument Appeal Alert

On January 16, the Forest Service released the Giant Sequoia National Monument Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), which determines the management direction the Forest Service will take in the Monument, for public review. Both the FEIS and the ROD fail, in many ways, to implement the protective purposes of the 2000 Presidential Proclamation (Proclamation) that created the Monument. Forest Supervisor Art Gaffrey has chosen Modified Alternative 6, the most ecologically damaging and costly alternative, as the management plan for the Monument.

Important habitat for the Pacific Fisher, the Fisher's declining population could eventually be forced to extinction under the current Monument management plan due to logging in their habitat. Disturbances allowed under the Proclamation can cause them to flee an area and become more vulnerable to predators and poachers.

Modified Alternative 6 is the alternative allowing the greatest amount of logging within the Monument. This pro-logging alternative is contrary to the Proclamation, which states "[r]emoval of trees, except for personal use fuel wood, from within the monument area may take place only if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety." This "so-called" management plan would arbitrarily allow trees up to 30 inches in diameter to be removed from the forest, a diameter limit that is not supported by the best available science. Instead of logging large trees to supposedly prevent fire, which is a natural part of the Monument ecosystem, the Forest Service should remove the brush, lower branches, and small diameter trees which are the most flammable materials in the forest. Removing these most flammable materials would protect the large trees that are the essential elements of the old forest ecosystem that must be protected.

The Sierra Forest Legacy, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, American Lands Alliance, Friends of the River, and California Trout have appealed this decision by sending in the attached Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons.
Comments of the Sierra Forest Legacy (320kb PDF)

Risks Run High for Forest Service Abuse due to new Bush Administration Categorical Exclusion Language for Environmental Analysis

Federal Register Notices of June 5th, July 29th, and August 23rd include direction for the Forest Service regarding the use of Categorical Exclusions from full environmental analysis in timber harvest, fire management activities and redefining the process for determining circumstances when NEPA shortcuts can be employed.

Forest monitors should pay close attention to recent and forthcoming schedules of proposed actions (SOPAs) for each national forest, in light of the likelihood of “back-to- back” projects of <1000 acres in watersheds with the lack of appropriate cumulative effects analysis, particularly in watersheds where existing high cumulative impacts already exist.

For Information:
Categorical Exclusions from NEPA for Fire Management Activities and Limited Timber Harvest (211KB PDF)

Framework Revisions Come Under Fire

Public comments on the revisions to the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework Plan have been highly critical of the Bush Administration’s attempts to roll back the progress made in protecting communities and the environment in the Sierra Nevada, but we are not alone.

Other reviews support the Sierra Campaign’s contention that the revisions proposed in the June 2003 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) are legally and scientifically unsound.

Risks Run High for Forest Service Abuse due to new Bush Administration Categorical Exclusion Language for Environmental Analysis

Federal Register Notices of June 5th, July 29th, and August 23rd include direction for the Forest Service regarding the use of Categorical Exclusions from full environmental analysis in timber harvest, fire management activities and redefining the process for determining circumstances when NEPA shortcuts can be employed.
Forest monitors should pay close attention to recent and forthcoming schedules of proposed actions (SOPAs) for each national forest, in light of the likelihood of “back-to- back” projects of <1000 acres in watersheds with the lack of appropriate cumulative effects analysis, particularly in watersheds where existing high cumulative impacts already exist.

For Information:
Categorical Exclusions from NEPA for Fire Management Activities and Limited Timber Harvest (211KB PDF)


Return to Top