Spring / Summer 2009

Spring snows of May are falling above 7,200 feet on Mount Shasta and other regional peaks as we write. The snows have brought the snow pack up to at least 95% of normal levels. Barring unseasonably hot weather, this should assure that the crystal pure waters of Mount Shasta’s springs will continue to flow all summer long …

Mount Shasta Geothermal Dormant for Now, But Still on the Books

by Michelle Berditschevsky

We continue to keep track of the Vulcan geothermal issue. In our last newsletter, we reported on the Forest Service’s decision not to consent to 15 square miles of geothermal leasing on Mount Shasta’s north and east slopes. This should safeguard the Mountain from this polluting and landscape-destroying development for the present. Vulcan’s appeal to BLM continues to be pending, awaiting its place in the Interior Board of Land Appeal’s backlog.

Programmatic EIS on Geothermal Leasing shows 240-megawatt capacity on Mount Shasta

However, in December 2008 the Secretary of the Interior approved a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for large-scale geothermal leasing on public lands in eleven Western states. The PEIS indicates a projected capacity of 240 megawatts on Mount Shasta, and 480 megawatts in the Medicine Lake Highlands. We submitted extensive comments on the PEIS in the fall. While the PEIS doesn’t approve any projects, it sets the stage for “streamlined” environmental review of potential geothermal leasing on 192 million acres of BLM and Forest Service lands. Mount Shasta is indicated as having among the highest potential, making it a likely target for further geothermal threats. With your help, we will continue to be vigilant.

Bolam and Deer Creek “Timber Stand Improvement” projects

In January 2009 we commented on two “Timber Stand Improvement” (TSI) projects—one covering five square miles on Mount Shasta’s vulnerable north slope bordering the Wilderness Area, and the other project located just west of the Mountain adjacent to the Castle Crags Wilderness. The Forest Service proposes to do both projects under a Categorical Exclusion (CE) that would preclude full environmental review. In our comments on the Decision Memo issued to justify the CE, we took the position that while the stated goals of fire safety are worthy, thorough environmental assessments are necessary to disclose and mitigate the full impact of the projects, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Bolam TSI calls for mechanical thinning of 3,200 acres in the Bolam Plateau area just below the Mount Shasta Wilderness, as well as 33 miles of fuel breaks from which all vegetation would be removed.

The Deer Creek TSI, involving 1,200 acres of mechanical thinking and one mile of fuel break construction (a continuance of the Rainbow Ridge fuel break) would take place within a Late Successional Reserve, which is supposed to be managed so as to enhance the old growth forest and its species.

Both projects would involve a lot of ground disturbance, impacting spotted owl habitat, water resources, soils, migratory birds, wilderness areas, and sensitive wildlife species such as the American marten and Pacific fisher, which are rare furbearers living northern forests.

Projects such as these are especially known to have impacts on water quality, including increased sediment and nutrient inputs in streams resulting from ground disturbance, and increased temperatures due to the loss of vegetation. Deer Creek is a fish-bearing stream in an area that also harbors intermittent tributaries and wetland. No watershed analysis has been done for the Bolam area on Mount Shasta and the Forest Service needs to disclose how the Aquatic Conservation Strategy will be applied.

Doing these projects under Categorical Exclusions falls far short of giving the public enough information to assess potential impacts and for these reasons we’re insisting on Environmental Assessments.

Forests…the “lungs of the planet”

Projects such as these continue to raise deeper questions of our relationship to the forests and the whole system of corporate forestry that requires a profit over and above the economics of the labor needed for forest treatments needed for fire safety. The profit element typically necessitates taking larger commercially valuable trees and performing the work by cheaper and more damaging mechanical methods.

Our involvement with Mount Shasta’s north slope forests goes back to 1993, when we were successful in halting the Pass Timber Sale covering 11 square miles and threatening to take the remaining pockets of old growth native stands that survived the excess logging of the past 100 years. At that time, we spoke of our concerns that the north slope, which only receives 10 inches of annual rainfall, was subject to progressive desertification. We advocated for restoration objectives that maximize water retention and improve forest diversity within the extensive plantations that already cover much of the area.

We will use the current opportunity to again advocate to restore the remaining forest, native plants and wildlife habitat. Restoration seems more appropriate than timber production given the Mountain’s cultural significance and natural value. We hope it will make an excellent economic stimulus project!