Take Action:  Action Alerts | Action Alert Sign Up | Volunteer | Join or Give

Forest Service to log proposed Wilderness Area in Duncan Canyon

Plan would ruin wilderness character of this unique old-growth forest

Deadline: Extended to August 26, 2002

The Tahoe National Forest has released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Red Star Restoration Project. The proposed project follows the Star Fire of August 2001, which burned about 10,000 acres in the Duncan Canyon area.

If the preferred alternative moves forward, commercial logging will occur within the Duncan Canyon Roadless Area, which contains a proposed wilderness area and one of the last old-growth red fir forests in the Sierra Nevada. Along with this disastrous aspect, the plan includes "restoration" practices that undermine ecological integrity and violate the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (Framework) of 2001.

At the same time that the Forest Service is accepting comments on this plan, the U.S. Congress is considering the California Wild Heritage Act of 2002 (S.2535), which would designate a portion of Duncan Canyon as a Wilderness Area. The logging of old-growth trees in this area would leave massive stumps and ground disturbance, disqualifying Duncan Canyon from Wilderness status. The emphasis on helicopter logging would also leave excessive residual fuels that would actually increase fire risk.

Act now!
We support the idea of a restoration plan for the Star Fire area. However, the five management alternatives provided in this draft plan are unacceptable. Please write to the Forest Service and ask for an amended alternative.

Comments must be received by August 26. Please send your letter to:
Foresthill Ranger District
Tahoe National Forest
Attn: Karen Jones
22830 Foresthill Road
Foresthill, CA 95631

To view the DEIS, visit the website www.r5.fs.fed.us/tahoe/management/star_restoration/index.htm or call Karen Jones at (530) 478-6354 for a copy.

Points to make in your comments:

• We do not support any of the alternatives in the Red Star DEIS as written.



• Alternative E is the best alternative—because it is the only one that would NOT log in the Duncan Canyon Roadless Area. It would close 1.5 miles of road within the area, which we support. It also ensures that no fuel reduction treatments will occur within California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs), as required in the Sierra Framework. HOWEVER—it still violates the Framework in several ways. We would support a "Modified Alternative E" with these changes:



• 1. Stream buffers that fully comply with the Framework standards of 300 feet per bank for perennial streams, and 150 feet per bank for intermittent streams.



• 2. No logging of any tree, fallen or standing, greater than 20" dbh (diameter at breast height), with the exception of Defense Zones, where the necessity of protecting infrastructure and human communities is a priority. The Framework requires that all trees over 20" dbh be retained in Old Forest Emphasis Areas (which encompasses nearly the entire project area).



• 3. Cutting of hazard trees on trails only where an immediate danger is presented.



• 4. The number and acreage of SPLATs* should be limited because research regarding their effectiveness is lacking. Allowing areas with 100% mortality to serve the function of SPLATs is a reasonable approach.



• Without these amendments, Alternative E would devastate many old-growth characteristics that this plan is supposed to restore.



• All the other alternatives are unacceptable:



• 1. Alternative A is no action; we do not support this because we support the Sierra Framework which allows for fuel reduction in the wildland-urban interface.



• 2. Alternative B is the proposed action; it is unacceptable because it would log the Duncan Canyon Roadless Area, it does not comply with the Framework requirements for stream buffers, and it allows all dead trees over 10" in diameter to be removed.



• 3. Alternative C is unacceptable because it would log the Duncan Canyon IRA, would intensively log even more acreage than B, and still falls short of stream buffer requirements in the Framework.



• 4. Alternative D is unacceptable because it would log the Roadless Area, it fails to comply with the stream buffer requirements, and does not protect trees greater than 20" within SPLATS, Defense Zones, or Threat Zones, as required by the Framework.

*[SPLAT stands for Strategically Placed Area Treatment. SPLATS are zones where the majority of fuels have been removed and are supposed to be strategically located in a watershed to reduce the spread and intensity of a fire.]