changes to plan would triple sierra logging · weak language regarding old-growth pro-tection, she...

Volume 7, Number 2 The newsletter of Forests Forever Fall, 2003

Changes to plan would triple Sierra logging

Victory! Court tosses flawed Jackson plan

Sustainable forestry: Does ‘good’ logging exist?...6

Buyer be aware: A guide to certified timber ...7

Inspired by mom: Rose Foundation’s Jill Ratner ...8

Schwarzenegger’s green promises: A reality?...2

‘Healthy Forests:’ Dismantling key protections...3

Forests Forever garners L.A. Times coverage...4

Inside The Watershed

The Watershed

Forests Forever recently won a majorvictory in its two-year battle to end large-scale logging of Jackson State Forest.

On Aug. 5 the Mendocino CountySuperior Court threw out the managementplan and accompanying environmentalreport for Jackson Demonstration StateForest. Forests Forever Foundation andally The Campaign to Restore Jackson StateRedwood Forest last fall had sued theCalifornia Department of Forestry (CDF)

over the documents. The two groupscharged that the environmental report vio-lated basic requirements of law.

Specifically, Judge Richard Hendersonsaid the report contained three flaws:

• The state Board of Forestry, not the forestry department, should havebeen the agency to certify the environmental report.

• The report did not contain adequate consideration of the environmen-

tal setting of the forest, as required by law. And most sig-nificantly,

• The report did not adequately evalu-ate the cumulative environmentalimpacts of the management plan’soutlined timber operations.

Henderson ruled that the report must

see “Jackson,” p. 12 col. 1

The U.S. Forest Service isseeking extensive changes to amanagement plan for the SierraNevada. These changes wouldgreatly intensify logging in thearea.

Under the proposedchanges to the plan, called theSierra Nevada Framework,protection for old-growth forestand restrictions on livestockgrazing would be severelyweakened. In addition, currentlevels of commercial loggingwould nearly triple, threaten-ing endangered species habitatand watersheds throughout theregion.

The proposed changes,which would apply across 11.5million acres of national forests

in the region, had been pendingfor a period of public comment,which closed Sept. 12. TheForest Service received at least36,000 comments in favor ofkeeping the existingFramework in place. BetweenMarch and September, ForestsForever received more than8,000 commitments from sup-porters to write, fax or call theForest Service and U.S. Sens.Dianne Feinstein and BarbaraBoxer opposing the changes.

Forests Forever also hasprovided research related to theFramework to the SierraNevada Forest Protection

Inyo National Forest Gerald and Buff Corsi © California Academy of Sciencessee “Framework,” p. 9 col. 1

Fall, 20032 The Watershed

Just after the recall election I asked anew acquaintance, a mature man whowas worldly and apparently well-edu-cated, whether he had any concernsabout the upcoming ArnoldSchwarzenegger governorship.

He thought for a moment thenlooked up at me anxiously. "Yes," hesaid. "Does this mean there won't beany more 'Terminator' movies?"

Levity aside, though, by Nov. 16 themuscular movie actor who has neverheld elective office will take thehelm of the government of theworld's sixth-largest economy.Along with my movie-going friendsome environmentalists are bitingtheir nails.

Some observers have notedthat Schwarzenegger has a fairlylarge list of environmental cam-paign promises, unusual for aRepublican. Some speculate thathe may be more astute at readingthe California electorate's pro-environment leanings than hisGOP predecessors.

There is reason to believe this iswishful thinking.

Forests Forever looks forward toworking with the new governor inaccomplishing everything we can in thefurtherance of responsible forest man-agement. It is prudent, however, for usto proceed with as few illusions as pos-sible.

As many readers of this column areaware, recent history has shown thatRepublicans tend to be more hostile toenvironmental safeguards thanDemocrats.

The national League of ConservationVoters in 2002 gave Republicans inCongress, out of possible score of 100, a13 in the Senate and 17 in the House ofRepresentatives. Democrats scored 72in the Senate and 79 in the House.

These numbers are typical at thestate level and illustrate a longstandingdifference between the two major politi-cal parties.

Also important regarding forestryreform as the Schwarzenegger term

approaches is that, as with mostRepublicans, a central bloc of his most-influential support is the business com-munity. Further, to gain the support ofhis party's most-conservative state lead-ers Schwarzenegger reportedly made adeal with them-- they would overlookhis moderate social positions inexchange for his running a campaignthat would attract voters from outsidethe party's hard-core ranks (SanFrancisco Chronicle, Oct. 9).

Over the course of his term it is like-ly these IOUs will be called in, andunlikely he will stray very far from hisbedrock supporters' agenda. AsChristopher Matthews points out in hisacclaimed book "Hardball," loyalty iseverything in politics: You are expectedto "dance with the one that brung ya."

On forest issues in particular wewere pleasantly surprised to seeSchwarzenegger's position in favor ofthe current Sierra Nevada Framework.See related story, page one.

In a seven-page pre-election cam-paign statement on his environmentalpositions, Schwarzenegger says, "AsGovernor I will direct all relevant stateagencies to comply fully with theFramework and call on the federal gov-ernment to honor its pledge to abide bythe policies set forth in this unprece-dented document."

Sounds good, but it does not exactlysay that he will oppose the weakeningchanges to the Framework, now being

pushed by the Bush Administration. There have always been a few

Republican politicians who had decentenvironmental records. There is even anemerging organization called REPAmerica that seeks to restore environ-mental protection as a fundamental ele-ment in the GOP's vision for the country.But for now "green Republican" remainsmostly an oxymoron.

Now in Democrat Gray Davis' caseconservationists had high hopes but got

a lot less than they bargained for.Across the spectrum of environ-mental issues forestry reform wasthe one on which Davis was mostharshly criticized.

On Oct. 12 Davis signed the bestforestry bill of his term, which willallow regional water quality controlboards to veto excessively pollutinglogging plans. But this happenedafter Davis had lost the recall elec-tion– after timber industry PACscould no longer punish him.

None of this changes the factthat Republicans almost always areworse environmentalists than

Democrats.As under past moderate

Republicans, it is likely we will seeSchwarzenegger make environmentallyretrograde appointments to the judici-ary and to agencies such as the board offorestry. Much harm can be done, aswell, with unfriendly budgets andexpenditure-item vetoes, as well as withregulatory "streamlining" efforts.

We doubt that Arnold would want apoor showing in the eyes of his businessand industry backers to become a sec-ond-term eliminator.

It's our job to make it politically cost-lier for him to allow the timber industryto have its way with the state's forests.

– Paul Hughes

“Over the course of(Schwarzenegger’s)term it is unlikely hewill stray very far fromhis bedrock supporters’agenda.”

Environmentalists wary of Schwarzenegger;Actor’s pro-green appearance may not last

Fall, 2003 The Watershed 3

“Healthy Forests” would curb public input,axe key federal environmental regulations

A bill that would implement PresidentBush’s ill-named “Healthy Forests” initia-tive is edging its way closer to a U.S. Senatevote.

The legislation, the “Healthy Forests

Restoration Act,” or H.R. 1904, would sus-pend environmental laws in order to expe-dite logging across federal forestlands.The U.S. House of Representatives passedthe bill in May. The legislation passed outof the Senate AgricultureCommittee July 24 and atpress time was headedfor a vote on the Senatefloor.

H.R. 1904 wouldabolish certain NationalEnvironmental PolicyAct (NEPA) require-ments for projects theU.S. Forest Service deemsnecessary for reducingthe threat of wildfire.

In addition, the billwould allow timber com-panies to log large trees on federal forests–including old-growth trees– as payment forremoving flammable smaller trees andbrush.

Just as concerning to environmentalists,the bill would hobble public input regard-ing logging projects.

“The most important thing for citizenactivists to know is that 1904 limits their

rights to even interact with the federal landmanagement agencies in decisions affect-ing hazardous-fuels-reduction projectsanywhere on national forests and Bureauof Land Management lands,” said Lisa Dix

of the American Lands Alliance inWashington, D.C.

President Bush first introduced“Healthy Forests” in August of last year.

Bills backing the initiative were intro-duced in the House and Senate during the2002 legislative session but were not votedon.

Forests Forever’s phone canvass hassent out several email and printed alerts onthe initiative since its introduction, encour-aging its contributors to contact their legis-lators in opposition to the plan.

Late in September of this year, severalSenate Republicans and Democrats,including California Sen. Dianne Feinstein,a Democrat, cut a deal on a new version ofH.R. 1904.

Dix said the new version looked almostexactly like the original bill. The only sub-stantive change was the addition of veryweak language regarding old-growth pro-tection, she said.

“It’s not that great of a deal,” Dix said.“It still cuts out the public and it doesn’t doanything to protect communities.”

While its stated purpose is fire protec-tion, H.R. 1904 does not focus thinningprojects near homes or communities.Instead it allows fuels-reduction projectsthat include logging into remote, and evenroadless, forestlands.

As an alternative to H.R. 1904 Sens.Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patrick Leahy(D-VT) introduced their own wildfire legis-lation that does focus fuels reduction nearpopulated areas. The bill, “Forestry andCommunity Assistance Act,” or S.B. 1453,leaves intact the existing public appealsprocess for projects on federal forestlands.

Dix was clear on how Feinstein couldbest channel her energy.

“It seems to me that it would be betterfor Sen. Feinstein to work with her col-league from California and to craft an alter-native that could be supported by themajority of the Senate rather than backingthe Administration’s proposal,” she said.

– Robert Sombrio

© David Catrow, Copley News Service

TAKE ACTION:At press time H.R. 1904 has not been voted on andForests Forever is recommending that people write let-ters to the editor of their local newspaper opposing themeasure. Check your local paper’s website for informa-tion on how to send letters via email, fax or regular mail.For updated information on the bill’s progress and sam-ple letters to the editor, visit:

www.forestsforever.org/bushhealthyforests.html

Forests Forever took an already-successful media campaign upanother notch in recent months, winning coverage from the LosAngeles Times as well as an exclusive TV interview.

The L.A. Times piece, “Activists decry logging of scenic stateforest,” by staff writerEvan Halper, ran May 3.The article included aphoto from a protestForests Forever stagedwith ally The Campaignto Restore Jackson StateRedwood Forest atCalifornia Department ofForestry offices in Willits.A second photo featuredJackson activist Bill Heil.The article detailed thegroups’ work to restorethe forest to old-growth-like conditions.

The L.A. Times cov-erage resulted largelyfrom research by ForestsForever into privatelandowners receivinggrant money fromJackson logging revenue.One of these recipientswas the Weesha CountryClub in San BernadinoCounty, a favored spotfor advertisers to shootcommercials for trucksand all-terrain vehicles.Another was the LakeA r r o w h e a dHomeowners Assn., aprivate community in theSan BernadinoMountains that ownsand maintains the lakeexclusively for membersand guests.

On July 11 ForestsForever ExecutiveDirector Paul Hugheswas interviewed on“North Bay Insider,” amorning news programon Santa Rosa’s KFTY-TV Channel 50.

Reporters CurtissKim and Scott Craiginterviewed Hughes livefor five minutes on Jackson and five more minutes on PresidentBush’s ill-named “Healthy Forests” initiative. Hughes also

explained Forests Forever’s position on topics such as sustainablelogging (see related story, page 6) and the decline of theMendocino County timber industry.

In addition to the L.A. Times and KFTY hits, Forests Forever

was featured in a range of other media outlets between March andSeptember. The group’s work on Jackson Forest was highlighted

Forests Forever’s Jackson Forest campaign garners coverage in L.A. Times, other venues


in a lengthy article in the June issue ofCalifornia Journal, a magazine for

Sacramento insiders. Also in June, San Francisco Magazine’s

“Think Green” issue listed ForestsForever’s work to stop logging at JacksonState Forest under the heading “Pick yourfight” as one of five local environmentalissues to “get into.”

Forests Forever’s lawsuit victory (seerelated article, page 1) resulted in coveragefrom the Associated Press, Santa Rosa

Press-Democrat and Willits News.Forests Forever plans to continue

increasing itscampaigns’ vis-ibility in themedia over thecoming months. Stay tuned for headlineson our research on topics related to theSierra Nevada Framework (see story, page1).

– A.S.


KFTY TV-50 reporters Scott Craig and Curtiss Kim interview Forests Forever ExecutiveDirector Paul Hughes.

Forest-protection groups, David to thetimber industry’s Goliath, constantlyscramble to stop logging from damaging–and even destroying– the Earth’s dwin-dling forests.

Although inarguably necessary, the

attention focused on stopping bad projectshas tended to obscure the fact that not alllogging must be greatly harmful. It is pos-sible to log in ways that allow forests tosustain themselves in perpetuity.

Like many activist organizations,Forests Forever does not categoricallyoppose all logging. Says the group’sExecutive Director Paul Hughes: “We havealways favored logging done in an envi-ronmentally sensitive manner. And eventhough there is a growing number of exam-ples out there of environmentally accept-able logging, it is still happening on only atiny fraction of the total acreage beinglogged.”

Definitions of sustainable logging vary.

Environmental advocates and scientistsgenerally agree, however, that a sustain-able forestry operation is one in which treesare removed at a slower rate than theygrow back.

Recognized sustainable forestry expertHans Burkhardt of Willits saysthat this rate of removal in ayear should be no more than 2percent of the forest’s annualtotal wood volume. This per-centage has become widelyaccepted in forestry activist cir-cles.

When trees are removed at afaster rate than 2 percent of theinventory (or “POI 2”), it doesn’tjust reduce the number of treesin the forest, Burkardt said in aninterview with Forests Forever.It also depletes the nutrients inthe soil, slowing the growth ofthe trees that remain.

If the harvest rate exceedsthe 2 percent of inventory,Burkhardt says, not only will theforest decline ecologically, butalso the companies economical-ly dependent on that forest willcollapse.

Burkhardt, who has primari-ly studied forests in MendocinoCounty, points to the privateWillits Woods timber holding asa n

example. Theland, whichwas laterbought by R. &J. LumberCompany, waslogged downto about 2 per-cent of its orig-inal timbervolume, thenauctioned offin 1988. If ithad been man-aged sustainably, Burkhardt says, the landstill could be producing an annual volumeof high-quality timber worth $5 million per

year and supplying about 60 permanentjobs for the people of Willits.

“They didn’t care about what wouldfollow because they knew they wouldleave and sell it,” Burkhardt said.

Chris Maser, a former U.S. Bureau ofLand Management forester and a respectedsustainable forestry consultant, says thatthe pursuit of economic gain has taken pri-ority over scientific understanding of theforests’ limits.

“We can have a sustainable forestindustry to produce wood products forpeople, but only if we redesign industry tooperate, in fact, within the sustainable lim-its set by the forest, not by people,” Maserwrites in “The Redesigned Forest” (R. & E.Miles, 1988).

For forestry to be truly sustainable,Maser says, humans must manage not justtrees, but processes. Forests left untouchedincrease in their diversity, complexity andstability over time, Maser says.

“We are not now headed toward sus-tainable forestry because we are trainingplantation managers, not foresters,” Maserwrites. “A forester manages a forest. Weare liquidating our forests and replacingthem with short-rotation plantations.”

Sustainable forests are ones managedfor multiple uses– not just timber produc-tion, said the late Gordon Robinson, a pre-eminent forester who served for over adecade as the chief forestry spokesman for

the Sierra Club. Theseuses include forests’less-quantifiable values:the habitat they provide,for example, and theirinherent beauty.

Robinson identifiedfive characteristics of his“multiple-use forestry.”The first is the basic onementioned above: har-vesting trees at a slowerrate than they growback.

The others include:

• Long cutting cycles. This means allowing trees to reach maturity– generally 100 to 200 years–

Shifting to sustainable forestry:Logging’s emphasis can move beyond mere profits– “We’re only limited by what we think we can’t do”

photo © Mark and Audrey Gibson


For forestry to betruly sustainable,Maser says, humansmust manage notjust trees, butprocesses.

before harvesting them. • Keeping the logging area as small as

possible while leaving enough

canopy opening for sunlight to reachspecies that need it.

• Maintaining habitat for all native

species.• Taking

extreme pre-cautions toprotect the soil.

Although acertain level ofexpertise isneeded tomanage a for-est well,Robinson said,you don’t haveto be a profes-sional foresterto recognizebad forestry. Iflogging looksbad, he said, itis. Whenforestry isdone sustain-ably, on theother hand, theforest retainsits beauty.

S e t hZ u c k e r m a n ,author of“Saving ourA n c i e n tF o r e s t s ”

(Living Planet Press, 1991), emphasizes theimportance of mimicking natural processeswhen logging. Practitioners of sustainableforestry realize that forests thrive on“messiness,” including downed logs, snags(standing dead trees), uneven tree heights,Zuckerman says. Logging should be donein a way that mirrors how trees would dieoff naturally in the forest, he says.

“There’s always mortality in the for-est,” Zuckerman said in an interview withForests Forever. While trees often die offindividually or in small clusters, he says,“It’s way less common that an entire hill-side will be denuded.”

Zuckerman points to 500-acre ArcataCommunity Forest in Humboldt County asa working example of sustainable forestry.The citizens of Arcata passed a law in 1979with the intention of developing an ecolog-ically sensitive long-term managementprogram for the forest.

“They tend to take small groups of treesof a quarter to half an acre, mimickingwhat a windstorm could do in the forest,”Zuckerman said of the forest’s managers.

Soquel Demonstration State Forest inSanta Cruz County, which uses horse log-


Spotlight: Eco-friendly certified timberYou're building a deck. Or adding on to your house. How do you know that the wood you're using isn't a product of clear-cutting,

or contributing unduly to habitat loss or stream pollution?Fortunately there are organizations out there certifying wood that has been har-

vested "sustainably"– doing relatively little or no damage to the environment.Unfortunately it is often difficult for the average consumer to tell the difference

between the bona fide environmental certifiers and ones backed by Big Timber. The following is intended to sort out the legitimate environmental labels from

the ones falsely made to look environmentally meritorious to win over concernedconsumers.

The world of legitimate timber certification has two types of organizations. The first type establishes the standards timber producers must meet to receive

certification. This category includes only one reputable organization– the ForestStewardship Council (FSC).

The second type includes companies that inspect timber operations to ensurethey are meeting the FSC's standards.

The FSC was the first organization to set standards for certification. Its certifi-cation system remains the only one with broad support from environmentalgroups worldwide.

Headquartered in Oaxaca, Mexico, the FSC also has offices in Washington, D.C.and Toronto.

See “Sustainable logging,” p. 10 col. 1See “Certified,” p. 11 col. 2

© Foundation for Deep Ecology

Jill Ratner traces her activist roots toone person– her mother.

In fact Ratner was so inspired by hermother's commitment to civicinvolvement that she named hernonprofit, The Rose Foundationfor Communities and theEnvironment, after her.

With her mother as mentor,Ratner, who played a key role inefforts to establish theHeadwaters Preserve inHeadwaters Forest during the1990s, began her career as anactivist in junior high school.

"My mother was a terrific rolemodel," says Ratner. "She reallybelieved in participatory democ-racy. My mother took me intothe halls of Congress during theVietnam War when she button-holed her congressional represen-tatives. She convinced me thatthis was exactly what you weresupposed to do, that it wasappropriate behavior for a goodcitizen."

In her mother's experience,Ratner said, participatory democ-racy was what distinguished theUnited States from the oppres-sion facing Poland, from whichher family fled shortly beforeWorld War I. At the time, a largepart of the country was controlled byRussia under the rule of Czar Nicholas II.

"My mother convinced me that it wasreally incumbent on every person to usethe political process that was available tous here in this country to protect the valuesthat she believed this country stood for–the values articulated in the Declaration ofIndependence and the Bill of Rights."

Ratner carried those early lessons inactivism into her career as an environmen-tal and finance lawyer. Ratner graduatedfrom U.C. Berkeley's Boalt Hall School ofLaw. Before co-founding the RoseFoundation, she organized a multi-culturalrecycling-advocacy coalition in the LosAngeles area, effectively moving the Cityof Los Angeles to implement a curbsiderecycling program. She is a member of theAdvisory Council of the Foundation

Partnership for Corporate Responsibility,and the California Coalition for InvestorResponsibility.

Ratner also has served on theEnvironmental Quality Commission andSolid Waste Advisory Board for the City ofLos Angeles and on the boards of directorsof Communities for a Better Environmentand Californians Against Waste. She co-founded the Oakland-based RoseFoundation with husband Tim Little in1992.

"Our hope in creating the foundation,"she says, "was to move environmentalissues out of the bind that was createdwhen folks who wanted to overturn envi-ronmental protections started casting theissue as 'jobs versus the environment.'

"That seemed to us to be a nonsensicalway to look at things. A healthy economyneeds a healthy environment. Our ideawas that we could support projects thatwere trying to benefit both the environ-

ment and the community, and that workedto create a sustainable economy."

The foundation has two objectives.The first is a grant-making pro-gram, made possible largely byrestitution funds from legal settle-ments. The program disbursesfunds back to communities affectedby the subject matter of the litiga-tion. The foundation also has beenworking with other NorthernCalifornia funders this year to cre-ate the Northern CaliforniaEnvironmental Grassroots Fund.The goal of this fund is to allowfoundations to target small grantsto small, community-based organi-zations that are, in Ratner's words,"on the cutting edge of environ-mental protection."

The foundation's second pur-pose is direct involvement in envi-ronmental policy issues, an arena itfirst entered during theHeadwaters Forest battle of the1990s. Ratner's group workedintensively to promote state andfederal acquisition of the forest,which was owned by PacificLumber Co.'s parent companyMAXXAM Corp. In the process,the foundation went to the share-holders of MAXXAM and pleadedthe case for more responsible man-

agement of the forest."We wanted the company to look for

some resolution that would be good forforests, good for the North Coast commu-nities, and good for the shareholders ofMAXXAM," Ratner says.

Although permanent protection of thefull forest of about 60,000 acres has not yetbeen achieved, the Rose Foundationhelped catalyze the government purchasein 1999 of the 7,500-acre Headwaters ForestPreserve. The new preserve encompassesover 3,000 acres of ancient redwoods,including the celebrated HeadwatersGrove. Forests Forever was born of effortsto save Headwaters, devoting most of itsfirst 10 years of existence to generatingbroad-based public support for preservingthe forest.

see “Ratner,” p. 10 col. 1


Family courage spurs life of leadershipMentored by her mother, who escaped Poland’s oppression, Rose Foundation’s Jill Ratner’s learned value of activism early on

Jill Ratner photo by Andria Strickley

Campaign and CalPIRG’s EnvironmentCalifornia.

Environmental groups battling theForest Service’s proposal emphasize thatthe original Framework was based on hardscientific data documenting thecompromised health of theecosystems in the Sierras.

“The Framework was theresult of many years of work byfire and fuels scientists andForest Service researchers,” saidJohn Buckley, Director of theCentral Sierra EnvironmentalResource Center and a formerForest Service firefighter. “Itwas based in part on the $7 mil-lion Congressionally fundedSierra Nevada EcosystemProject Report– the most thor-ough scientific analysis everdone for the Sierra Nevadaregion.”

The original Frameworkcovers 11 national forests inCalifornia, from ModocNational Forest in the north toSequoia National Forest in the south. Theplan was signed into law in January 2001during the last days of the Clinton admin-istration. At the time of its signing,the plan had received more than47,000 public comments and peerreviews by independent scientists.The document was widely laudedby environmentalists for protectingold-growth and laying the ground-work for watershed restoration.

Under the original Framework,for example, old-growth standsone acre or larger would be off-lim-its to most logging, and 4.25 mil-lion acres of land would be man-aged as “old-forest emphasisareas” to promote old-growth val-ues. The Bush Administration pro-posal would eliminate protectionfor old-growth stands and wouldallow widespread logging of medium andlarge trees from within these areas.

The administration of California’s Gov.Gray Davis has come out in opposition tothe Forest Service’s proposals to alter theplan. At a press conference at the federalbuilding in Sacramento on Sept. 9California Resources Secretary MaryNichols called the adoption of the originalFramework “a major milestone.”

“But barely had the ink dried on thesignature on the Record of Decision,”

Nichols continued, “than it was whiskedaway and taken back for ‘some changes.’”

Those changes came the same year theFramework was approved. RegionalForester Jack Blackwell, a former timber

industry official newly appointed byBush’s Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth,announced his intention to lift grazing

restrictions, raise from 20 to 30 inches thesize of trees allowed for logging, and advo-cate logging to address “forest health”problems.

Top among these so-called forest healthproblems, according to Blackwell, is thevulnerability of the region’s forests to wild-fires. His planned changes, however, donot acknowledge that the Frameworkalready includes provisions for protectingareas near communities where fire protec-tion is needed most. Blackwell also failed

to address the issue that the majority oflands that would be opened to increasedlogging are so remote that if they were tocatch fire they would pose little threat tocommunities.

Further contradict-ing Blackwell’s asser-tions, research hasfound that logging– andlogging larger trees inparticular, as Blackwellproposes– does notreduce but ratherincreases fire risk. Thisis due in part to the factthat logging larger treesreduces moisture andshade, leaving behindsmaller, more-com-bustible trees andbrush.

“Fire science showsthat prescribed burningand surface-fuel treat-ments are the real key tochange,” Buckley said.

“If the public is truly con-cerned about wildfire on public forestlands, then the public and Congress willcome up with the dollars to do those treat-

ments.”Ecologists believe

that Blackwell’s pro-posed increase in log-ging, if carried out, notonly would fail to reducefires but also would posehuge threats to the healthof the Sierra forestecosystems and thewildlife that depend onthese ecosystems for sur-vival. The proposalwould, among otherthings, further threatenendangered speciesincluding the Californiaspotted owl, the Pacific

fisher, the willow flycatcher and theYosemite toad.

The Forest Service now must incorpo-rate the public comments it received into afinal proposal, a process likely to take sixmonths. If the final document includes thecurrently proposed changes– which envi-ronmentalists believe is a near certainty–activist groups likely will challenge theproposal in court.

– Erica Steiner

“Framework”continued from p. 1


Nichols at press conference on Sierra Framework photo by Andria Strickley

“Fire science shows that pre-scribed burning and surface fueltreatments are the real key tochange. If the public is truly con-cerned about wildfire on publicforest lands then the public andCongress will come up with thedollars to do those treatments.”

"That whole process," Ratner explains,"got us looking at issues related to invest-ment. As a result of that, we started ourEnvironmental Fiduciary Project, which isfocused on the positive correlationbetween environmental performance andthe financial performance of corporations.This project is now much of our work."

Asked how California's forests can bestbe protected, Ratner, the newest member ofthe advisory council of Forests Foreversaid, "The first step is public education.My sense is that, to a large extent, people in

California believe that our forests are moreprotected than they are. Most Californiansdon't realize how little forest is left, partic-ularly old-growth forests. Also... we prob-ably need some new comprensive legisla-tion (to reform the state's timber harvestinglaws), backed up with good, solid enforce-ment."

Ratner said that canvass organizing–Forests Forever's primary function– has asignificant role in forestry activism.

"Canvass organizing is terribly impor-tant. It's a way to bring issues to people in

a person-to-person fashion. I grew upknocking on people's doors, talking tothem about candidates and issues. It's hardwork and takes a lot of courage. But thething that's most exciting about it is whenyou can reach out to new people.Nothing," Ratner concludes, "is more pow-erful than one person talking to anotherperson about an issue of importance."

– Katherine L. Kaiser

“Ratner”continued from p. 8

ging and other ecologically sensitive meth-ods, is another good example of sustain-able forestry at work. See “Soquel Forest:A cut above the rest” (Fall 2002 issue of“The Watershed”). In recent years ForestsForever and other groups have pushed–using litigation and citizen lobbying– toinstitute sustainable logging in Soquel’ssibling forest, Jackson State Forest inMendocino County.

Critics of such forestry arguethat selective logging is tootime-consuming and costly.While he acknowledges thistype of logging requires morelabor than conventional meth-ods, Zuckerman argues that thisis a good thing. While industri-al logging is becoming increas-ingly automated– eliminatingjobs– sustainable logging cre-ates more jobs because itrequires the labor of hands-onworkers.

Sustainable logging may be moreexpensive to timber companies in theshort-term than common industrial meth-ods, but is far less costly to the foreststhemselves and the wildlife that inhabitsthem, Zuckerman says.

Moreover, the enormous costs of water-shed damage, erosion control, and losses tolocal industries such as fishing and tourismnow are borne by the public rather than thetimber industry.

One of the many forestry experts whoecho Zuckerman’s call for balance betweenhuman and non-human forest use is HerbHammond, a forest ecologist knownthroughout Canada for his vision of sus-

tainable forestry. Hammond calls this bal-ance “Wholistic Forest Use.”

“Within the context of ecologicalresponsibility, we must ensure that all for-est users– human and non-human– havefair, legally protected land bases that arewell distributed throughout the forest, suf-ficient to meet their needs, and adequate toensure that their functions are maintainedin the ecosystem,” Hammond writes in“Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial

Forestry” (Earth Island Press, 1993).The protected areas, Hammond says,

must be large enough to withstand naturaldisturbances and be connected across thelandscape by semi-protected corridorsthrough which plants and animals canmigrate.

Hammond’s approach to sustainableforestry here is a sort-of zoning methodol-ogy with certain areas set aside as no-cut,others (such as wildlife corridors) as limit-ed-cut and still other areas open to sensi-tive logging.

Figure 1 on page 7 shows a map of alandscape that includes large protectedwatershed areas (labeled “drainage

basins”). Figure 2 shows a blow-up of thearea labeled “small landscape” in Figure 1.The detail of this landscape shows old-growth nodes, where logging would not beallowed. Logging would be restricted inthe areas deemed “ecologically sensitive,”such as high-elevation forests. Loggingalso would be limited in the riparian zone-the area immediately bordering a river orstream.

Environmentalist foresters such asHammond agree that“wholistic forestry” (the kindthat takes place in the whitezones in figure 2) is character-ized by removal of a varietyof sizes and species of treesfrom an area in any givencycle (or conversely, leavingmixed age classes and speciesbehind), as well as retentionof down logs in streams aswell as on the forest floor, andretention of a significant per-centage of the canopy.

Maser, the former BLMconsultant, firmly believes that the poten-tial for revolution in forestry practices islimited only by our own imaginations.

“As Han Solo said in the movie ‘TheEmpire Strikes Back,’ ‘Don’t ever tell methe odds,’ which means we’re only limitedby what we think we can’t do.

“It isn’t that we don’t know enough togrow sustainable forests. We simply havechosen not to. The choice is ours. The con-sequences are ours and the future’s.”

– A.S.

“Sustainable logging”continued from p. 7

“...(W)e must ensure that allforest users– human and non-human– have fair, legally pro-tected land bases that are welldistributed throughout the for-est...”


A publication of Forests Forever, Inc.and the Forest Forever Foundation

50 First St., Suite 401

San Francisco, CA 94105

phone (415) 974-3636

fax (415) 974-3664

[email protected]

www.forestsforever.org

The Watershed© 2003

Forests Forever, Inc.Forests Forever Foundation, Inc.

All rights reserved

Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper

The Watershed

FORESTS FOREVER

Board of Directors

Mark A. Fletcher, Ph.D.President

Ken SmithSecretary

James NewmanTreasurer

Kent Stromsmoe

Advisory Council

Richard Gienger

Betsy Herbert

Martin Litton

Jeanne Newman

Jill Ratner

“Restore,Reinhabit,

Re-enchant”

Paul HughesExecutive Editor

Andria StrickleyEditor

Gary Bentrup Flag Artwork

“Certified”continued from p. 7

FORESTS FOREVER FOUNDATION

Board of Directors:

Paul HughesExecutive Director

Mark A. Fletcher, Ph.D.President

Ken SmithSecretary

James NewmanTreasurer


Founded in 1993 largely by the SierraClub and World Wildlife Fund, the councilalso was created with help from timber indus-try representatives, foresters, indigenous peo-ples and community groups.

The FSC's extensive criteria for certifica-tion range from protecting ancient forests andconserving the forest's biological diversity toallowing indigenous peoples to retain controlof their forestlands.

The majority of other certificationschemes around the world have been createdby the timber industry, said Jennifer Krill ofthe San Francisco-based Rainforest ActionNetwork.

"The trend toward green logging hascaused the industry worldwide to create awhole lot more green stamps of approval,"Krill said.

The primary industry group "competing"with the FSC is the American Forest andPaper Association (AFPA). In response to theFSC's standards, the AFPA introduced its owncertification standards called the "SustainableForestry Initiative (SFI)."

Krill says the AFPA essentially copied theFSC's standards. But while FSC's guidelinesare mandatory for certification, SFI's are vol-untary, Krill says. This means that companiesnotorious for their bad logging practices,including California's Pacific Lumber Co. andSierra Pacific Industries, can achieve certifica-tion under the SFI standards.

"Those two companies have done nothingto change their practices to achieve the certifi-cation," Krill said.

The FSC, on the other hand, enlists 11organizations worldwide to carry out on-the-ground inspections of timber companies'practices. Two of these are active in the U.S.:SmartWood (a program of the RainforestAlliance) and Scientific Certification Systems.

Once the timber is certified, it is markedwith the council's "FSC" seal. A database ofcompanies certified by the council is availableat www.certifiedwood.org.

Despite its credibility in the eyes of manyenvironmental groups, the FSC is not withoutits critics.

The U.K.-based Rainforest Foundationreleased a report in 2002 pointing out what itcalled “serious flaws” in the council’s certifi-cation system. The report contended, amongother things, that the council’s auditors have avested interest in certifying timber companiesregardless of whether or not they actuallycomply with the certification standards.

Krill acknowledges that the FSC's systemhas its problems.

"It's not perfect. In fact, it's far from it,"she said.

As an example, the FSC's recent certifica-tion of Mendocino Redwood Company (head-quartered in Mendocino County) caused amaelstrom of controversy because it did nottake local activists' concerns into account,Krill says. The company was certified despiteobjections over its logging in habitat forendangered species such as coho salmon.

Although FSC does have flaws, it is stillthe best certification system in wide use, Krillsaid. Additionally, she says, her group tries toavoid battling FSC decisions even if they arenot perfect. To do so, she says, "would dis-tract us from fighting industry-sponsored cer-tification, which is a whole lot worse."

For more information visit:

www.certifiedwood.orgwww.fscus.orgwww.smartwood.org

– A.S.

FORESTS FOREVER50 First St. #401 San Francisco, CA 94105

Address Service Requested

If you do not wish toreceive The Watershedsend this along with themailing panel at right to:

Forests Forever50 First St. #401San Francisco, CA 94105

Thank you.

Please remove me from the newsletter mailing list.

NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSan Francisco, CAPermit No.3573

be rewritten and go through a public hear-ing process. This means that logging inJackson almost certainly will not go for-ward until at least May 2004.

Timber companies and state forestryofficials complained that the logging delaywill cost them a lot of money. Hendersonplaced the blame for the potential incomeloss squarely with the forestry department,however.

“CDF and the Board (ofForestry) had every reason tobelieve that their approval ofthe updated Management Planwould be subjected to closejudicial scrutiny,” Hendersonwrote. “With that in mind,CDF and the Board shouldhave scrupulously followedthe procedures adopted by thelegislature to minimize the riskof an inevitable court chal-lenge and the potential eco-nomic hardship on the man-agement of (Jackson) and onthe local timber industry.”

“What’s so shocking here is that thecourt has prevented (the forestry depart-ment) from logging its own forest– a forestthat is supposed to be demonstratingenlightened forestry,” said Paul Carroll,attorney for Forests Forever and theJackson Campaign. “It’s such an embar-rassment.”

It would be one thing to see such aflawed environmental report from anagency that does not oversee the state’sresources, Carroll said. But it is the forestrydepartment’s job to protect the environ-

ment, he said.“We actually tried very hard to bring

their errors to their attention even beforethe report was out and they ridiculed us,”Carroll added.

Forests Forever Foundation BoardPresident Mark Fletcher said the rulingincreases the chances of passing legislationto end intensive commercial logging in theforest permanently.

“At the time we started beating thedrum on the Jackson issue two years agono one even knew it existed,” Fletcher said.

“Some in the state legislature weren’t evenaware that California had a state forest sys-tem.

“We brought Jackson’s existence and itsproblems into full view. That’s the startingpoint for passing a reform bill.”

Jackson, which is located in MendocinoCounty between the towns of Mendocinoand Ft. Bragg, is an oasis of second-growthredwoods surrounded by cutover industri-al timberland. Many of these second-growth trees are between 80 and 110 yearsold. If large-scale timber operations thereare ended the 50,000-acre forest eventually

could return to conditions mirroring old-growth.

The forestry department, however, haslogged Jackson for decades, providing upto $15 million annually to the agency’s cof-fers in recent years.

Forests Forever first became involvedin efforts to preserve Jackson in 2001. Fromthe beginning of its campaign, the organi-zation generated nearly 50,000 letters, post-cards and commitments to call, fax or writestate legislators and forestry officialsregarding Jackson.

In the fall of 2002 ForestsForever generated most ofthe 4,800 public-comment let-ters on the management plan.Of that total only 49 favoredCDF’s logging scheme.

Additionally, ForestsForever worked in early 2003with Sierra Club Californiaand the Jackson Campaign tointroduce legislation to endlarge-scale commercial log-ging in Jackson and changethe state forest system’s man-date to restoration of old-

growth characteristics. No lawmaker has yet agreed to to spon-

sor the bill. Yet the groups made signifi-cant progress toward bringing the issue outof obscurity and into the legislature’sawareness.

The Jackson Campaign has hired a con-sultant to help initiate a second go at intro-ducing legislation to restore the forest.Forests Forever likely will play a part indrafting a new bill and in building publicsupport for the legislation.

– A.S.

“Jackson”continued from p. 1

“What’s so shocking here isthat the court has prevented (theforestry department) from log-ging its own forest– a forest thatis supposed to be demonstratingenlightened forestry.”

changes to plan would triple sierra logging · weak language regarding old-growth pro-tection, she...

Documents