volume 10, number 2 the newsletter of forests forever fall ... · volume 10, number 2 the...

Volume 10, Number 2 The newsletter of Forests Forever Fall, 2006

CCoouurrtt oovveerrttuurrnnss rrooaaddlleessss rruullee rreeppeeaall !!

JANET COBB: HARD AT WORK FOR WOODLANDS . . . 7BOOK ’EM: FORESTS BETWEEN COVERS . . . 9CUTTING UP GIANT SEQUOIA MONUMENT . . . 10

GOLDILOCKS IN THE GREENHOUSE . . . 2CALIFORNIA GOES IT ALONE ON EMISSIONS LIMITS . . . 3TREES UNITED AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING . . . 4LOGGING FORESTS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD? . . . 6

Inside The Watershed

The Watershed

In a stunning victory for Americanwilderness and wildlife, a federaljudge in San Francisco has thrown outthe Bush administration’srepeal of the Roadless AreaConservation Rule and rein-stated the Clinton-era regula-tion protecting 58.5 millionacres of roadless federal lands.

Magistrate Judge ElizabethLaporte of the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern Districtof California on Sept. 19 ruledthat the U.S. Forest Service hadacted illegally by repealing theoriginal roadless rule withoutconducting an environmentalreview as required by theNational Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA), and for failing toconsult with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and theNational Marine FisheriesService, as required under theEndangered Species Act.

“The (Bush administration’s)State Petitions Rule is set asideand the roadless rule, includingthe Tongass Amendment, isreinstated,” Laporte’s opinionstates.

Forests Forever Foundationwas one of 20 conservationgroups that filed suit in October 2005.

The federal agencies, Laporte wrote,

“are enjoined from taking any furtheraction contrary to the roadless rulewithout undertaking environmental

analysis consistent with this opinion.”News of the rule’s reinstatement

brought joyful reactions from environ-mentalists.

“The court’s reinstatement of theoriginal roadless rule is an exhilarat-ing development,” said PaulHughes, executive director ofForests Forever. “In tossing out theBush administration’s attempt toopen the national forests to loggingand development, the court is alsoreflecting the opinion of the majorityof Americans, who have said repeat-edly, in polls and in public com-ments on the rule in record num-bers, that they want the roadlessforests of this country protected.”

Although the original rule isreinstated, the judge’s rulingallowed the Bush administration’s2003 exemption of Tongass NationalForest from roadless rule protectionsto stand. Located in southeastAlaska, the Tongass boasts 9.3 mil-lion acres of roadless area.

“It’s unfortunate that theTongass Amendment wasretained,” noted Forests ForeverBoard of Directors President MarkFletcher. “The exemption of thesepristine forests by the Bush admin-istration was a warm-up for therepeal of the entire rule, and theydeserve protection along with the

See “Roadless,” p. 12

phot

o co

urte

sy H

erita

ge F

ores

t C

ampa

ign

Roadless area in Eldorado National Forest, California.

Fall, 20062 The Watershed

from the Executive Director

One idea put forward by advo-cates of making Mars habitable forcolonists or refugees from Earth is tostart by growing plants on the RedPlanet’s polar ice caps.

Dark, radiation-loving, and ableto make copies of themselves, spe-cially adapted plants wouldwarm the caps, melting theirtrapped waters and beginningthe formation of an atmosphere.

We seem to be taking thisprocess in reverse here on Earththese days, stripping our forestsand desertifying the place likethere’s no tomorrow.

Human-induced globalwarming– a fact now endorsedby virtually every reputable cli-mate scientist– is widely understoodto have a lot to do with how we havetreated our forests over the last cou-ple centuries.

And while deforestation con-tributes enormously to global warm-ing, at the same time the warminghurts forests. California’s iconicforests are where this vicious cyclemay be most evident in the UnitedStates in coming decades.

Some people assume that forests,like people, will be able to migratereasonably quickly if their native cli-mate warms up too much. While theEnts in the movie Lord of the Ringswere able to do something alongthese lines, we should be remindedthat in the real world forest migra-tion may take millennia, where itoccurs at all.

In California, the San FranciscoBay has represented a natural barrierfor both northward and southward-migrating species of all kinds, forestsincluded. The vast farms of the

Central Valley are another, newer,obstacle.

California’s most important tim-ber tree, Douglas-fir, needs winterchill conditions for germination andgrowth. Increased Doug fir mortali-ty on account of global warming will

not only pressure the state’s timberindustry, but also increase the fuelload in the forests.

California’s beloved coast red-woods are arguably already a relictspecies– that is, pressed to the verymargins of a formerly much widerrange and now barely hanging on.They will face an uncertain future asthe moist coastal redwood region,which now provides 7 to 12 inches ofthe redwoods’ annual water budgetthrough fog drip alone, becomeswarmer and drier.

Our giant sequoias currently occu-py a “sky island” surrounded bydeserts and semi-arid ranchlands.More than a century of industriallogging– still continuing– has driedand thinned out these forests, sub-jecting the giants to regenerationchallenges and blowdown.

As in many other forests, thesequoias to a large extent create andsustain their own relatively cool,moist environment. Removal of the

sequoias’ shading, moisture-trap-ping canopy will make it harder forthem to hang on to the ground theyalready occupy.

You may be thinking by now:Where does it end? Scientists call aprocess that produces cascading,

self-amplifying effects a “positivefeedback loop.” It’s a sort ofdownhill race that could theoreti-cally spin out of control.

Which brings us to our plane-tary neighbor one orbit closer tothe Sun. On Venus a runawaygreenhouse effect has pushedplanetary temperatures to 890degrees Fahrenheit– hot enough tomelt lead. And while no one hasyet found evidence of ancient rust-

ing power plants or Hummers there,Venus remains a disquietingreminder of just how pleasant ourmistreated planetary home is bycomparison.

In the comfortable middle spacebetween Mars and Venus lies whatastrobiologists call the “Goldilockszone.” Here Earth occupies the oneplace where we have the best chanceof making sure it stays not too hot andnot too cold for life as we know it.

In the face of what may well bethe greatest challenge ever to the sur-vival of life on Earth, managing ourforests with greater care would seemto be something much easier to dothan moving to a planet next door.

— Paul Hughes

“Earth occupies the oneplace where we have the

best chance of making sureit stays not too hot and

not too cold.”

WWaarrmmiinngg iitt uupp iinn tthhee GGoollddiilloocckkss ZZoonnee::Can California’s forests take the heat?

Fall, 2006 The Watershed 3

HHiissttoorriicc eemmiissssiioonnss lliimmiittss bbiillll ppaasssseessTrue to its frequent role on the cut-

ting edge of new developments, cultur-al and political, California has steppedinto the lead in the fight against globalwarming.

The Global Warming Solutions Actof 2006 (A.B. 32), introduced byAssembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-LosAngeles) and Assemblymember FranPavley (D-Woodland Hills) and signedby Gov. Arnold Shwarzenegger on Sept.27, makes reductions in greenhouse gasemissions mandatory, giving force to tar-gets issued last yearby Schwarzenegger.

The act’s objec-tive is to reducegreenhouse gas emis-sions in the state to1990 levels, or 25 per-cent of the level cur-rently expected by2020.

These limits willbe phased in gradu-ally. By 2008 thestate Air ResourcesBoard will haveestablished green-house-gas emissionslevels based on thelevels in 1990. Thiswill be used as astandard againstwhich to measurefuture emissions.

Beginning in 2010 the board willenforce interim limits that will progres-sively reduce emissions levels until the2020 cap is reached.

After lengthy negotiationsbetween the governor’s office and thebill’s legislative sponsors, the measurewas passed by the Assembly on thelast day of the session, Aug. 31.Almost a month later the governorsigned it into law.

A.B. 32 encountered heavy opposi-tion from business, energy companiesand utilities. In an article in theSacramento Bee (8/17/06), for example,the California Chamber of Commercecomplained that A.B. 32 would drivebusiness out of the state.

Supporters of the bill have coun-tered that these costs will pale by com-parison to the cost of doing nothing.

“If left unchecked, global climatechange threatens California’s air quali-ty, water supply, public health, powergrid reliability, and largest industries,including agriculture, tourism, skiing,and forestry,” the bill’s sponsors wrotein an analysis presented to fellow law-makers.

California’s forests would suffergreatly from global warming. Hotter,

drier weather will mean more wild-fires. Changes in the amount of pre-cipitation may leave forests more vul-nerable to pest outbreaks, with moredead trees and greater likelihood ofcatastrophic fires. Some species oftrees may find that there is little or nosuitable habitat left.

Worldwide, deforestation has con-tributed an estimated 25 to 30 percent tothe greenhouse effect, according to theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange report. (See “Warming world,”page 4).

“California will be a very differentplace if something isn’t done now tohead off or at least mitigate human-caused climate change,” said Mark

Fletcher, president of Forests Forever’sboard of directors.

Schwarzenegger issued an execu-tive order last year that outlined emis-sions reduction goals similar to those inA.B. 32. The legislation will make theselimits mandatory, however, and the AirResources Board will be empowered toassess legal penalties.

Being a leader in controlling green-house gas emissions will likely bringother advantages to the state in the nearfuture. There will be a need for new

transportation andenergy technologiesthat can reduce theseemissions, or nevergenerate them in thefirst place. Californiacan be the source ofthis new technology,generating jobs andrevenue in theprocess.

“This legislationwill actually build afire under the start-upof new businesses inCalifornia,” Fletchersaid.

Some critics won-der how much onestate can affect what isafter all a problem ofglobal proportions.

California, with theworld’s eighth largest economy, is also its12th largest contributor of greenhousegas emissions.

Already Schwarzenegger andBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair havebegun high-profile discussions onways to reduce emissions and estab-lish a market for carbon credit trading,bypassing an intransigent Bushadministration.

Forests Forever began campaign-ing for A.B. 32 in July, reaching outthrough its phone canvass program tosupporters around the state, and call-ing attention to the bill on our websiteand in press releases, email blasts andaction alerts.

—M.L.

Pho

to b

y D

ru D

oran

. ©

Big

Sto

ckP

hoto

s.co

m

California is the twelfth-largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world.

No credible scientist disputes anymore that the planet is heating up, andonly a few politicians and oil industryflacks still deny that human beings aredriving climate change, primarilythrough their use of fossil fuels.

The signs are manifold: melting gla-ciers, collapsing ice fieldsin Antarctica, melting seaice in the Arctic, tropicalstorms increasing in vio-lence and frequency. Therise in sea levels predictedover the next century willinundate low-lyingislands and flood coastalregions. Weather patternsare shifting. Plants andanimals have begun tomigrate, following climateshifts that have made theirformer habitats less liv-able.

The world’s forestswill affect and be affectedby these changes as well.

Soak it up Forests are an impor-

tant part of the carbon cycle, theexchange of carbon-based moleculesthat is constantly occurring among liv-ing things, the land, the oceans and theatmosphere.

Trees use sunlight to produce sugarsthrough a process called photosynthe-sis. At the same time, trees absorbatmospheric carbon– carbon dioxide,the primary greenhouse gas. Trees andforest soils hold on to this carbon. Thisstorage is called carbon sequestration.

When forests are cut down, not onlydo photosynthesis and carbon absorp-tion stop, but the stored carbon isreleased into the atmosphere when thetrees rot or burn.

Cutting down and burning forestsDeforestation is an important factor

in global climate change, as well as

causing loss of biodiversity and dimin-ishing water quality and quantity.

According to a 2000 special report onland use and forestry from the authori-tative Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), 1.6 billion tonsof carbon dioxide a year are released to

the atmosphere due to deforestation(cutting and burning of forests).

Until the early 1900s deforestationwas the main source of increased CO2 inthe atmosphere. Since that time, theburning of fossil fuels has producedmore greenhouse gases. But land-usechange (mostly deforestation) is esti-mated to be responsible for up to 25 to30 percent of CO2 emissions, accordingto a 2001 IPCC report.

The most common reason for defor-estation is conversion of the land toagricultural use. You might think thatreplacing trees with farm crops wouldmake no difference to atmosphericgreenhouse gases, since all plantsabsorb and store carbon.

But forests can store between 20and 100 times more carbon than crop-lands.

Tropical vs. temperateForests in temperate zones were the

first to be converted for agriculturaluse. In the past 50 years, however, thefastest rates of deforestation havetaken place in tropical regions asimpoverished nations have converted

their land for farming and grazing.Rates of tropical deforestationincreased between 50 and 90 percent inthe 1980s.

In tropical forests, the cheapest andmost common method of convertingforest land to agriculture is the “slashand burn” technique. Burning forestsreleases enormous amounts of CO2into the atmosphere. Coupled withthe loss of carbon sequestration, thisburning plays a major role in thegreenhouse effect.

How the land is used after it iscleared may be the most important fac-tor in determining the role played bydeforestation in global warming. A1991 study shows 90 percent of defor-ested tropical regions becoming farmsor ranchland, while only 10 percent wasreplanted for future timber harvests.

4 The Watershed Fall, 2006

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

NA

SA

Ear

th O

bser

vato

ry

educational feature

Warming world, changing forestsGlobal warming: It’s here, it’s hot, and it’s our fault

This tropical forest has been burned to clear the land for agriculture. Burning releases the carbon stored in the trees– and cropland will absorb less CO2 than the forest it has replaced.

Trading trees?The Kyoto Protocol is an amend-

ment to the United NationsConvention on Climate Change. Itrequires its 164 signatory nations (theUnited States conspicuously absentfrom the list) to reduce theiremissions of carbon dioxideand five other greenhousegases to around 5 percentbelow 1990 levels.

A controversial aspect ofthe Kyoto Protocol negotia-tions was whether to take thecarbon-absorbing capacitiesof forest lands into account inregulating a nation's carbon dioxideemissions.

There are still unresolved questionsabout how to account for a gain or lossof carbon-absorbing forest “sinks.” Forexample, should harvesting timbercount as part of a nation’s emissionsbecause of the resulting loss in carbon-absorbing forest? And should re-plant-ing deforested areas count as emissions“credits”? Should foregoing a purport-edly planned timber harvest be countedas an emissions credit?

While a forest can “lock up” carbontemporarily, the way that aforest is managed canincrease or decrease itscapacity. Clearcutting notonly removes carbon-absorbing trees, but alsoallows the CO2 stored inthe soil to escape. Thinningand fertilizing forests mayalso increase their ability tostore carbon.

But undisturbed forestsreach an equilibrium afterabout 100 years, with theamount of carbon theyabsorb roughly equalingthe amount they releaseinto the atmosphere.

Heating up Californiaforests

The climate scientists who con-tributed to Our Changing Climate:Assessing the Risks to California (TheCalifornia Climate Change Center,2005) came up with three scenariosthat try to predict the possible effectsof global warming on California. They

looked at what might happen to thestate under low, medium, and hightemperature changes. Unpleasanteffects were forecast under every sce-nario.

Among the predictions: declining

air quality and more days of severeheat, leading to “two or threes timesmore heat-related deaths.”

At the high-temperature scenario,up to 90 percent of the Sierra snow-pack may disappear. Since the Sierrais the most important source ofCalifornia’s water supply, this wouldlead to severe shortages. Californiafarmers could lose as much as 25 per-cent of their water supply.

Traveling treesAn important effect of increasing

temperatures will be the shift inecosystems as plant and animalspecies attempt to migrate to staywithin a livable climate and habitat.

But many species may not be ableto move if their habitat no longerexists. Species adapted to an alpine

climate, for instance, might not be ableto find comparable conditions any-where.

And in the most populated state inthe country, a considerable amount ofthe natural landscape has already been

fragmented by develop-ment– housing, shoppingmalls, highways. So even ifsuitable habitat existssomewhere, species may beblocked in their attempts tomigrate to it.

More fires, more oftenAnother consequence of

hotter, drier summers could be anincrease in the number of severe forestfires in California. As the state heatsup, forests will tend to shift northwardand uphill to cooler climes. Some sci-entists fear the forests may not be ableto migrate rapidly enough, leavinglarge areas of dry, dying trees suscepti-ble to intense blazes.

Changes in rainfall and water flowcould cause drought conditions insome parts of the state. Without suffi-cient water, forests also would bestressed and more vulnerable to dam-

aging insects.

El NiñoA rise in “El Niño-like”

storms and more flooding incoastal and delta areas ispredicted by several studies.

It is also possible (thoughstill uncertain) that changesin surface ocean tempera-ture could affect the fre-quency and density ofcoastal fog. If this scenariocame to pass, coastal red-woods, which get much oftheir moisture from fog drip,could eventually disappearfrom the coast ranges.

In the case of long-livedtrees such as the redwoods,the damage might not be

immediately apparent.“Individual redwoods may survive

for centuries, even millennia,” accordingto Confronting Climate Change in Cali-fornia, a report from the Union of Con-cerned Scientists website (updated on


TO

LES

© 2

005.

The

Was

hing

ton

Pos

t. R

eprin

ted

with

per

mis

sion

of

UN

IVE

RS

AL

PR

ES

S S

YN

DIC

AT

E. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

See “Warming world,” p. 11

Clearcutting not only removes carbon-absorbing trees, but also allows

the carbon dioxide stored in the soil to escape.


Bill would boost salvage loggingIt claims forests need logging to help them recover

A bill now in Congress would makeit easier than ever for loggers to strip aforest after it burns.

Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR) andBrian Baird (D-WA) introduced theForest Emergency Recovery andResearch Act (H.R. 4200) on November2005. The measure would put timberharvest projects on a fast track after“natural disasters” such as wildfire,allowing them to bypass NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) pro-visions requiring public participation.

The Walden bill would apply tologging projects in national forestsafter very broadly defined “cata-strophic events, ” including drought,insect outbreaks, floods, and wind-storms. These events are defined sovaguely that the provisions of the billcould be triggered by a heavy rain.

It also would allow fast-tracked log-ging in roadless areas and old-growthforests.

“It makes you wonder,” said MarkFletcher, president of the board ofForests Forever. “How did forests sur-vive all those eons without the ForestService around to log them after theyburned?”

Walden’s bill would allow the U.S.Forest Service to dispense with the usualrequirements under the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) to consult with theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and theNational Marine Fisheries Service todetermine the effect of logging on threat-ened wildlife. The bill allows impacts onendangered species to be weighed onlyafter a project is completed– when itwould be too late.

A decision to log a parcel wouldhave to be made in 30 days. The ForestService could fulfill public participationrequirements simply by publishing anotice. The bill’s suggestion that theForest Service “foster collaboration” isas vague as its definition of “catastroph-ic events.” After 30 days the projectcould begin immediately.

The bill’s boosters say that logging,

roadbuilding, and tree planting areneeded after forest fire to help the forestrecover. But many scientists say thereis no need to log a forest after a burn.

In fact, scientific studies have sug-gested that logging could cause more

harm than good, and actually delayrecovery. Heavy equipment compactsthe soil and damages root systems,while erosion from ground exposed bylogging can harm stream quality.

Harvesting burned and dead treesremoves nutrients from the forestecosystem, delaying recovery.

Logging increases the likelihood offorest fires, leaving behind debris fromthe cut timber (“slash”), which is highlyflammable. And by taking out thebiggest trees, loggers remove the treesmost resistant to wildfire.

Replacing natural forests withmonoculture tree plantations is aninvitation to fire and disease.

Alarmed at the Walden bill’s lack ofa scientific foundation for post-distur-bance logging, 587 scientists aroundthe country on Aug. 1 signed a letterthat was sent to Congress.

“No substantive evidence supports

the idea that fire-adapted forests mightbe improved by logging after a fire,”the letter says.

To fund these unneeded recoveryprojects, H.R. 4200 would divertmoney from fire prevention work near

threatened communities. Moreover,salvage-logging timber sales end upcosting the taxpayer money.

The final argument against H.R.4200 is that it is unnecessary. Post-firelogging projects that follow therequirements of NEPA or the ESAhave accounted for around 34 percentof logging volume from nationalforests in recent years.

The bill passed the House on May17 and is now in the Senate Committeeon Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

—M.L.

Forests have eons of practice at recovering after a fire, and don’t need any help.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

US

DA

/Bob

Nic

hols

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Write your California senators and urgethem to oppose H.R. 4200.

Sen. Barbara Boxer1700 Montgomery St., #240San Francisco, CA 94111

Sen. Dianne FeinsteinOne Post St., #2450San Francisco, CA 94104

California oak trees have a friendand advocate in Janet Santos Cobb.

The California oak is often taken forgranted. When most people think ofCalifornia trees, the majestic redwood orperhaps the giant sequoia probablycome to mind. Yet the tree that bestdefines the state’s landscape, both ruraland urban, is the oak.

Until the advent of Sudden OakDeath syndrome (SODS) inthe mid-1990s, the oak wasassumed to be as eternal asthe Pacific Ocean. The emer-gence of the still-uncon-quered disease, which killsoaks and other kinds of trees,raised public awareness ofoaks. But after a few monthsof media focus on SODS, theoak appears to have sunkback into obscurity.

Which is one of the manythings worrying Cobb, presi-dent and executive officer ofthe California OakFoundation. Founded in1988, the organization cham-pions oak trees and oakwoodlands throughout thestate, and Cobb’s name hasbecome synonymous withoak woodland preservation.

“We’re just trying to get people to gofrom the single oak tree to thinkingabout oak woodlands and oak forests,”says Cobb. “That’s what we’re trying todo: to take people from their love of asingle tree to seeing that this is anecosystem that covers 10 to 13 millionacres.”

Cobb has a history of many years ofactivism and fighting City Hall as acampaigner for environmental issues.Her tireless efforts on behalf ofCalifornia’s oaks and her devotion towilderness areas have earned her a rep-utation among forest lovers as a tough,sometimes outspoken but always grace-ful “troublemaker.”

Born in Nebraska, Cobb grew up inthe then-rural hills of the Pinole Valleyin the Bay Area, riding horses, cleaningstables and feeding her parents’ chick-ens. A degree in journalism from SanFrancisco State University in the late1970s led her to work for several politi-cal campaigns in the early 1980s, pickingup an MA in radio and TV along theway. But it was her time as assistant

general manager of the East BayRegional Parks District that she sees aspivotal in her work for the environment.

She co-founded the California OakFoundation in 1988 and has been itspresident since 1994, orchestrating thegroup’s activities from its downtownOakland office. In addition, she is exec-utive officer of the California WildlifeFoundation and is a member of theboards of directors or advisory councilsof Forests Forever, Save San FranciscoBay, the Urban Wildlands Group andthe Planning and Conservation League(of which she is past president). Sheserved on the Berkeley WaterfrontCommission and, as the past presidentof the Yosemite Restoration Trust (now

merged with the National ParksConservation Association), she foughtfor reduced human impact on YosemiteValley for 20 years.

“I’m an advocate through andthrough,” she says. Her aim is to show“how you can get people from damag-ing things to looking after their own bestinterests.”

She also managed to find time toraise eight children, some herown, some adopted, all nowgrown up, and lives today on ahouseboat in the BerkeleyMarina.

Sudden Oak Death syn-drome may have got a lot ofpublicity but Cobb doesn’t see itas the gravest threat toCalifornia oaks.

“Everybody loves a disease.We go towards a disaster.People just love the thought ofthreat. I’d like people to focusinstead on the worthiness of theliving, healthy oak tree.

“It’s about the challenge ofgetting people to understandthat a healthy tree still standingis very, very important and, ifthey are healthy enough, theywill survive this disease. I have a

lot of faith in oaks. They’re pretty ornerytrees.

“None of the forestry diseases haveever been stopped by Man. You can’tstop it once it gets going. We can look atdifferent treatments but what we reallyshould be looking at is the health of thesoil. I mean, that should interest us fromthe point of view of our own survival.

“Certainly we should be doing allwe can to stop the spread of the dis-ease. For instance, we shouldn’t beintroducing non-native species into anative landscape because they can actas vectors for the disease. We shouldall be more mindful of where we are on

activist profile

HHaarrdd ttiimmeess ffoorr hhaarrddwwooooddssJanet Santos Cobb is as tough as the trees she defends

Janet Cobb, moving spirit of the California Oaks Foundation.

Pho

to b

y Ju

lian

Alle

n

Continued on next page


the planet and how we behave aroundthese trees. And we should really focuson what we’re doing with rampantdevelopment into the oak woodlands.”

More recently, global warming pro-jections that predict the Napa Valley willbecome too hot to be a viable environ-

ment for viticulture by the end of thiscentury fueled speculation that the bigwine producers would move theirwineries westward, with attendantclearcutting of vast tracts of oak wood-lands. But Cobb feels this misses thepoint:

“Most of the damage from thewineries has already happened.There’s been a glut and a lot ofpeople are having to dump theirgrapes. My worry is that, if theeconomics don’t work out verywell, that those lands will be converted tohousing. Existing vineyards will be per-manently converted and will become partof a great sprawl picture. I would hopethat the vintners themselves would some-how organize themselves to guaranteethat these lands be kept in agriculture.That would be a very big challenge, but ifthey replanted those lands with oak treesand became part of the climate registry, itwould be better than planting housesthere.”

Even government agencies taskedwith the stewardship of our forests can

constitute a threat to the oak trees.“We have sued in a case against the

U.S. Forest Service where they weregoing to spray herbicides on black oaksin the Larsen tract of the StanislausNational Forest. They would kill theoaks and replace them with a plantationof conifers. It’s even against the ForestService’s own plans.”

But she feels that the foundation hassucceeded in raising awareness in muchof the public sector. “The exciting thingis that many of the non-profits and agen-cies are now really working to save theoak ecosystem because they realize how

important it is to all the other species.”So, what is the most imminent threat

to California’s oak population? NotSudden Oak Death syndrome, thewineries or even the Forest Service,according to Cobb.

“Sprawl” is the culprit, she says. Acombination of burgeoning populationgrowth and poor land-use policies aregobbling up the woodlands at a recordpace, creating irreversible and potential-ly cataclysmic changes to the environ-ment. Some 20,000 acres of Californiaoaks are converted every year to hous-ing, highways and shopping malls.

“Everyone in LA thinks they have tohave a place in the Sierra and thoselandscapes are changing fast. If we haveall our food imported from abroad andwhat we’re growing are these tracthouses on our prime soil, that’s not real-ly sustainable for our future.

“We are flat-footed when it comes togood planning. Several bills are beforethe legislature, including the globalwarming bill which caps the output ofcarbon. (See “Historic emissions limitsbill passes” on page 3.) It is very impor-tant that the governor sign that but it’sdifficult to get these things through thelegislature.”

One important bill that did make itthrough was the Oak WoodlandsProtection Act. The act was signed intolaw by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in2004. It requires counties to consider theeffects of development projects on oaktrees and provides developers with amenu of mitigations.

The Oak Woodlands Protection Actwas an important campaign for ForestsForever as well. Between November2003 and the bill’s passage, the organi-zation generated 8,975 letters and callsto legislators and the governor in sup-port of it.

Current state laws designed to protectthe oaks are a step in the right directionbut don’t go far enough, Cobb says.

“I would like to see oaks protected inCalifornia. I have a friend who says ‘Kill

an Oak, Go to Jail.’ Maybethat’s not going to happen,but inch-by-inch we’repushing local ordinancesand working on statewidelegislation and I’m never

going to not work on regulating them.”Cobb expresses the situation suc-

cinctly: “You have 10 million acres ofoaks out of about 100 million acres [inCalifornia]. A lot of wildlife and a lot ofour systems depend on those oak treesstanding and so I think it’s in our bestinterests to keep as many of them stand-ing as possible.” —Julian Allen

For more information about oakwoodlands and forests and how to helppreserve them, visit the California OakFoundation’s web site athttp://www.californiaoaks.org/

Pho

to b

y C

harle

s W

ebbe

r. ©

Cal

iforn

ia A

cade

my

of S

cien

ces

California live oak

Fall, 20068 The Watershed

Continued from previous page

“I have a lot of faith in oaks. They’re pretty ornery trees.”

When is an environmental organiza-tion like a proud parent in the maternityward? When its first book is about to bedelivered.

We’re getting ready to hand out thecigars.

Forests Forever: Their Ecology,Restoration and Protection is fastapproaching its due date. The hand-some volume, illustrated withblack-and-white and full-color forest photography fromsome of the biggest names inthe field, surveys the currentsylvan landscape.

In jargon-free languagethat the non-specialist willhave no trouble understand-ing, Forests Forever explainshow forests function ecologi-cally, how current loggingpractices are destroying them,and how– with time, care, andknowledge– they can berestored.

At 288 pages, this new edi-tion adds 100 pages of text tothe previous version (whichappeared from Sierra ClubPress in 1998 as UnderstandingForests). In this expanded edi-tion, charts, illustrations, andhistorical photos have beenadded throughout the text. A36-page gallery of full-colorphotographs is included aswell, with work from suchnature photographers as GaryBraasch, Daniel Dancer, HerbHammond, and Larry Ulrich.

Author John Berger, anenvironmental consultant and scholarwho has followed forestry issues for along time, also takes a hard look at thegovernment’s approach to forestry,carefully examining the destructivepolicies emanating from the Bushadministration.

Dr. George M. Woodwell, a world-renowned expert on forests and global

climate change, has written of ForestsForever: “I am impressed with theimportance of th[is] book as a contem-porary statement of the . . . manage-ment of publicly owned . . . forests inthe U.S. . . . It is a smashing, timely,and totally appropriate indictment ofthe corruption of the public interest . . .by an administration totally devoted to

corporate welfare at public expense.”An introduction to the volume has

been provided by environmental policyanalyst, journalist and author CharlesLittle. His widely read book The Dyingof the Trees (Viking Press, 1995) focusedthe country’s attention on a problemfew were aware of at the time– trees allaround the country were dying from a

long menu of causes. Recently the growing awareness of

global warming and a sense of theenvironment’s fragility and peril hasbrought a fresh round of attention toThe Dying of the Trees. Little was evenvisited by a Michael Moore film crew.

Little’s introduction to Forests Foreverserves to connect Berger’s book to a

long line of attractive, eye-catching books that have alert-ed the public to the dangersfaced by forests. People need tobe reminded periodically oftheir importance, beauty, andvulnerability.

Forests Forever is the firstvolume to appear in ForestsForever’s publishing program.Our plans for the futureinclude children’s books, anactivist handbook, and muchmore.

Our hope is that ForestsForever will enable more peo-ple to know about forests, tocare about their preservation,and to take action to bring itabout.

The photographic dust jack-et and cover design is almostcomplete (see picture). Severalother versions are being consid-ered but, whichever is chosen,the book is sure to be visuallystriking.

The book should be avail-able for pre-order byChristmas. The prestigiousUniversity of Chicago Press(UCP) will distribute Forests

Forever nationwide, listing the book inits Fall 2006 catalog, although UCP isannouncing it as not available untilMarch 2007.

Keep an eye on the Forests Foreverbook pages on our website(http://www.forestsforever.org/ConciseGuide.html) for updates.

—M.L.


FFoorreessttss bbeettwweeeenn ccoovveerrss::Forests Forever’s first book nears its debut

The cover design has not been finalized by press time, but thisversion gives an idea of Forests Forever’s visual impact.

Judge tosses Sequoia Monument logging planCalling the U.S. Forest Service’s

scheme for managing Giant SequoiaNational Monument “incomprehensi-ble,” a federal judge recently threw outthe Forest Service’s management planfor the area.

The Aug. 22 ruling in San Franciscowas part of Judge Charles Breyer’s deci-sion on two lawsuitsagainst logging in themonument– onebrought by BillLockyer, the Cali-fornia attorney gen-eral, and the other bythe Sierra Club andseveral other envi-ronmental groups.

The attorney gen-eral had sued theForest Service over itsplan, saying that itviolated previousagreements betweenthe state and federalgovernments.

The Sierra Clubsuit was based on theenvironmental harmthe agency’s logging would cause in themonument, especially to habitat of thePacific fisher, a candidate for the federallist of endangered species.

Breyer further ruled that the man-agement plan did not comply with therequirements of the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA).

In a July 2005 ruling on an earliersuit brought by the attorney general, thejudge found that the Forest Service’s fireplan for Sequoia National Forest wasillegal.

The Sequoia National Forest entirelyencompasses the monument, where log-ging had been going forward under thisplan. Also in July, the judge halted the1,160-acre Ice timber sale.

Then in September the judge grant-ed a preliminary injunction against the2,000-acre Saddle Project, a timber salein the monument packaged as a “fuels-reduction project.” This sale wouldhave removed five million board feet,from trees up to 30 inches in diameter.

The two timber sales were stoppedafter court challenges in 2005 by theJohn Muir Project, Sequoia Forest-Keeper and the Sierra Club.

With August’s ruling, Breyer notonly threw out the forest managementplan, but also tossed out four expiredtimber contracts that were in place

when President Bill Clinton proclaimedthe monument in April 2000.

Legislative end runThe courts may have struck down

the timber sales inside the monument,but at least one area politician wants toraise them from the dead.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) intro-duced H.R. 5760, the “Giant SequoiaNational Monument Transition Act of2006” on July 11.

The legislation would override the2005 court decisions and allow theForest Service to start up the loggingprojects again. The bill also would fore-stall any future appeals.

The decree by Clinton protected327,769 acres of southern Sierra forest–including half the remaining sequoiagroves on the planet– and prohibitedlogging in the monument. Timber salesalready authorized were allowed to pro-ceed so long as they were completedwithin two and a half years.

The Forest Service extended thisdeadline, however, citing poor prices fortimber. Then in 2005 the agency claimedthat fire safety required immediate fuelsreduction, and allowed logging to begin.

Nunes’ bill also would place a fuels-reduction project, the Kings RiverResearch Project, in Sierra National

Forest, on a fast track,exempting it fromthe requirements ofNEPA.

Let the ParkService do it

This latest at-tempt at logging inthe monument hasintensified calls totransfer the monu-ment from the ForestService to the Na-tional Park Service.

“The Park Ser-vice is capable oftreating these treas-ures with care andrespect,” said PaulHughes, executive

director of Forests Forever. “The ForestService apparently is not.”

The Act to Save America’s Forests (S.1897) was introduced last year in theSenate by Sens. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) andChristopher Dodd (D-CT), and has justbeen introduced in the House by Rep.Anna Eshoo (D-CA) as H.R 6237. Thebill would place the monument underthe Park Service’s control.

Forests Forever campaigned for theact’s introduction for 10 months, begin-ning last September, and generatedthousands of constituent messages sup-porting the bill.

There are 99 national monuments inthe country; the Forest Service adminis-ters six of them. But the agency has nei-ther the expertise nor the inclination torestore natural ecosystems. The ParkService, on the other hand, has nearly acentury of experience in preservingnational monuments, many of whichhave become national parks.

—M.L.

This clearcut in Giant Sequoia National Monument shows the effects of erosion.


Pho

to b

y M

artin

Litt

on

8/10/05), “long past the point where cli-mate changes make growth of new seed-lings impossible.”

Forests thus doomed are known as“museum” populations, wherein indi-vidual trees seem healthy but are nolonger able toreproduce.

Win some,lose some

As someglobal warmingnaysayers liketo point out, theincrease in car-bon dioxide,and the warmeraverage tem-p e r a t u r e s ,could actuallyincrease forestproductivity–at least in theshort run. Butdrier climate,changes inwater flow, in-creased fre-quency andseverity of for-est fires, and in-creased vulern-ability to pesto u t b r e a k swould likelycancel out these gains.

While the world’s forests may helpsoak up the immense overload of fossilfuel carbon human beings havepumped into the atmosphere over thepast 150 years, they too will eventuallyfall victim to rising temperatures.Exchanging forests for deserts is notanyone’s idea of a good trade.

Losing our carbon habitAn Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s

epochal 2006 documentary film aboutglobal warming, is bringing the factsabout global warming to a wider audi-ence. Awareness of the problem isspreading rapidly, and– finally– being

taken evermore seriously.Even some cor-porations inthe energy in-dustry haveadmitted thatglobal warm-ing is a real andurgent issue.

Californiais about tobecome thefirst state inthe country toenact limits ong r e e n h o u s egas emissionsthat are driv-ing climatechange. (See“ H i s t o r i cemissions lim-its bill passes,”page 3.)

But nation-al leadershipremains out of

touch on theissue. President

George W. Bush has refused to sign theKyoto Protocol, and his administrationstill has not made any concrete propos-als to regulate greenhouse gases.

But something needs to be done,soon, if we are to avoid very disruptive,and possibly permanent changes to theclimate of the only planet we’ve got.

—M.L.

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

The Watershed© 2006

All rights reserved

Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper

The Watershed

FORESTS FOREVER

50 First St., Suite 401San Francisco, CA 94105

phone (415) 974-3636fax (415) 974-3664

[email protected]

Board of Directors:

Mark A. Fletcher, Ph.D.President

Ken SmithSecretary

James NewmanTreasurer

Kent Stromsmoe

Advisory Council:

Carla Cloer

Janet Santos Cobb

Betsy Herbert, Ph.D.

Martin Litton

Jill Ratner

“Restore,Reinhabit,

Re-enchant”

Paul HughesExecutive Editor

Marc LecardEditor

Gary Bentrup Flag Artwork

FORESTS FOREVER FOUNDATION

Board of Directors:

Paul HughesExecutive Director

Mark A. Fletcher, Ph.D.President

Ken SmithSecretary

James NewmanTreasurer


Pho

to c

ourt

esy

US

DA

/Bob

Nic

hols

“Warming world,” continued from page 5

More and more intense forest fires are one predicted effect of global climate change.

rest of the country’s wild forests.“But it’s good to have the roadless

rule back in force. This will help protectour remaining roadless forests.”

The RoadlessArea ConservationRule protected 58.5million roadlessacres of federal forestfrom roadbuilding,logging, drilling,mining, and otherdevelopment.

The roadless rulewas one of the mostpopular environ-mental rules everwritten. More than1.2 million Ameri-cans commented onthe rule after it wasfirst proposed in1998, with more than95 percent of themsupporting its banon new roadbuildingin public forests.

The 2001 rule was formallyrepealed by the Bush administration inMay of 2005.

The State Petitions Rule that replacedthe roadless rule forced state governorsto petition the U.S. Department ofAgriculture if they wanted to protectroadless areas in their states.

The new rule gave no assurance that

the petitions would be granted, howev-er. If a petition were to be rejected, land-use decisions would have defaulted toindividual forest management plans.Nationally, 56 percent of such plansallow for development in roadless

areas.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of

California recently filed a petitionunder the Bush rule that would haveprotected all 4.4 million roadless acresin the state’s national forests.

In August 2005, the attorneys gener-al of California, New Mexico andOregon filed a lawsuit asking the court

to reinstate the original roadless rule.Washington joined the suit this year,and attorneys general from Maine andMontana filed friend of the court briefs.

The two lawsuits were consolidatedthis year.

The environ-mentalists’ law-suit was filed byEarthjustice onbehalf of The Wil-derness Society,California Wil-derness Coal-ition, Forests For-ever Foundation,N o r t h c o a s tEnvironmentalCenter, OregonNatural Re-sources Fund,Sitka Conserva-tion Society, Sis-kiyou RegionalEducation Proj-ect, BiodiversityC o n s e r v a t i o n

Alliance, SierraClub, National

Audubon Society, Greater YellowstoneCoalition, Center for BiologicalDiversity, Environmental ProtectionInformation Center, Klamath-SiskiyouWildlands Center, Defenders ofWildlife, Pacific Rivers Council, IdahoConservation League, ConservationNW, and Greenpeace.

—M.L

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, CA94105

Thank you.

Please remove me from the newslettermailing list.

Logging road and post-cut debris in Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

Mar

tin L

itton

“Roadless,” continued from page 1

NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSan Francisco, CAPermit No. 3573

volume 10, number 2 the newsletter of forests forever fall ... · volume 10, number 2 the...

Documents