Lawsuit Filed to Defend Old-Growth on Klamath National Forest

EPIC Files Lawsuit to Defend Old-Growth In Klamath National Forest

 

Mature forest stand. All trees in this photo without orange paint are proposed for logging. Photo and photo caption by EPIC.
Old-growth Douglas fir 5 foot in diameter located in Northern spotted owl critical habitat and home range that is proposed for cutting. Photo and photo caption by EPIC.

13 thoughts on “Lawsuit Filed to Defend Old-Growth on Klamath National Forest”

  1. I wonder what the FS is thinking here. I don’t believe everything I read. I can’t believe the FS would just target a stand of green old growth.

    Reply
  2. I only see one tree marked with orange paint. Is the complaint that old growth will be cut, or is the complaint that some trees among the old growth will be cut. It is my understanding that the Northwest Forest Plan only thins old growth, and doesn’t target all of it, within a cutting unit.

    250 acres of old growth thinning doesn’t seem like much to worry about, if done carefully.

    Reply
    • The photo caption from EPIC clearly says: “All trees in this photo without orange paint are proposed for logging.”

      Here’s the USFS website for this timber sale and burning project: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=30373

      A 3 minute glance at the U.S. Forest Service’s response to scoping comments revealed this:

      Commenter #5 is: Kimberly Baker, Klamath Forest Alliance; George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center; and Andrew Orahoshe, Environmental Protection Information Center. Steve Wilnet posed a question the other day when he was attacking (and spreading false information about) Bark, asking “how do you manage to work with groups with such aims” that “aren’t much interested in compromise?”

      As we can clearly see here, the forest/wildlife/clean water protection groups accused of participating in a supposed “black cloud” of litigation have in fact, offered numerous solutions based on compromise. So, the question is, how do citizens that want forests, wildlife and clean water protected “manage to work with groups” like that U.S. Forest Service and timber industry that “aren’t much interested in compromise.”

      Reply
      • Generally, blue and orange paint are used for ‘cut trees’ and yellow paint is used for ‘leave trees’. (However, some Forests have their own policies)

        That marked cedar sure doesn’t look like a ‘leave tree’, to me.

        Reply
  3. Certainly not a very healthy looking stand. Low quality timber for lumber production. Best either left for wildlife, or take out the smaller unhealthy trees that may be stressing the old growth during drought periods.

    Reply
  4. This is another tough one as because it’s in litigation, we can’t simply ask the Forest folks to clarify.

    Interesting, in the Jan 2020 Objection letter it says..

    “The forest provided further clarification in response to comments making it clear that Alternative 4 does not propose to harvest old-growth trees and most mature trees will be retained (Response to Comment #14, p. 16).
    I did however, hear your concerns about the treatment of.mature stands with large trees during the objection resolution meeting and suggest the forest clarify proposed treatment activities as it relates to mature stands with large trees. ”

    So I went back to the DN Feb 2020 and here is the description of the commercial thinning:

    “Commercial thinning prescriptions will be site-specific in order to maximize ability to meet the purpose and need of the project. Thinning prescriptions will generally retain 30 to 60 percent of the existing basal area and are designed to maintain and increase species diversity while maintaining the individual old-growth trees. Vegetation treatments will selectively remove trees within close proximity of old-growth trees and the following species: sugar pine, ponderosa pine, and incense cedar. There may be the occasional mature or old-growth Douglas-fir removed as a result of free thinning around sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar or hardwood since the intention is for stand diversity and mature or old-growth characteristics of those specific trees.

    Proposed thinning within close proximity of black oak, madrone, and chinquapin where these hardwoods are dominant or co-dominant instead of being overtopped by conifer species. Douglas-fir stands will generally be thinned so that remaining trees will continue to maintain and improve live crown ratios; development of old-growth characteristics within the stands will be encouraged. A goal of variable density within Douglas-fir stands will be met by leaving some small areas (one 0.1-acre area) un-thinned every two or three acres while removing all trees
    within other small areas (one 0.1- to 0.2- acre areas) every two to three acres. Larger skips (wildlife leave areas) will be identified by the wildlife biologist to ensure recovery act
    compliance while coordinating with the silviculturist and loggers.”

    From our discussions of where/why litigation might be a problem. note that this project has only 288 acres of commercial thinning in natural stands, and 115 acres of fuel break on a ridgetop. In many parts of the country, this would not be controversial, and might even be done with a legislative CE.

    Here’s the total acres:

    1,674 total acres of treatment are proposed in Alternative 4 as follows:
    • Commercial thinning (natural stands 297 acres and plantations 162 acres)
    • Precommercial thinning with pile burning (294 acres)
    • Understory Fuels Reduction (499 acres)
    • Mastication (73 acres)
    • Fuels breaks (115 acres)
    • WUI (177 acres)
    • Meadow and Wetland Restoration with pile burning (57 acres)”

    It would be interesting to actually look at the “proposed marking” in the areas with old growth trees (297 + 115?) and see how many old growth trees would be marked. Maybe it’s a silvicultural disagreement- to the plaintiffs, diversity of species is not as important as retaining as many old trees as possible. Maybe the controversy is all about specific tree marking.. unlikely IMHO to be satisfactorily resolved in a courtroom. It would certainly be a better deal for the taxpayer if an agreement could be worked out tree by tree, as silviculture folks and marking crews are cheaper than lawyers. Perhaps the judge should require evidence (a video?) of mediation in the field before further legal work is done.

    Reply
  5. The decision on how to mark a cutting unit depends on the prescription. If you are going to cut more than half of all the trees, then a leave tree mark is appropriate. If you are cutting less than half of the trees, then a cut tree mark works better. Also, with a leave tree mark, you need very, very good painted unit boundaries. Not so much with a cut tree mark.

    Reply
  6. According to the news release, plaintiffs’ main issues are not old growth per se, but wildlife that lives in old growth.

    “The lawsuit focuses on three major claims: the agencies failure to comply with it’s own Forest Plan for the protection and recovery of northern spotted owls, especially reproductive pairs; failure to protect the Pacific fisher, which would lose 225 acres of habitat; and the failure to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement, which is required when a major federal action may significantly affect the quality of the environment.”

    The objection letter cites the EA/FONSI as adequately documenting non-significant effects on these species. It does not address this forest plan consistency issue.

    But these pictures get at the problem of the discretion built into project planning that allows big trees to be chosen for logging after they’re done with the public process: “Commercial thinning prescriptions will be site-specific in order to maximize ability to meet the purpose and need of the project,” and terms like “most” and “generally.” And what is the definition of an “old growth tree;” I thought that term pertains to habitat or stands. (Another confusing factor is that most of the project area is not in the “general forest” where trees can be logged for timber volume, but we don’t know where these pictures are from – 1/6 of the project area is general forest.)

    Reply
    • Here’s another example of questions arising about whether the Forest Service is changing the decision it promised the public when it implements the project. The Daniel Boone National Forest is being accused of marking many more trees for sale than was authorized in the NEPA process. “I trusted them to implement these projects as described, as approved and as is consistent with the law,” said the Director of Kentucky Heartwood who hiked through the area, and then returned to take measurements. We could be seeing beginning of a new wave of lawsuits as the Forest Service finds it has to cheat to meet Trump Administration timber targets.
      https://wfpl.org/u-s-forest-service-accused-of-illegal-logging-in-kentucky/

      Reply
      • Jon, I’ve been hearing from partners that “projects aren’t implemented as we agreed” since forever. When folks were doing more formal inspections of their own work, when the FS was experimenting with a more formal process of checking (EMS), they found that projects weren’t even carried out as the silviculturist designed them. One example I remember from a certain location was that planting contractors did the work according to the contract, but force account didn’t perhaps because they were not checked.

        Many reasons way before Trump was on the scene.

        I guess lawsuits are one way to do the continuous improvement cycle, but it seems unnecessarily adversarial and expensive compared to alternatives. Like checking, documenting, seeing what went wrong and fixing it, then documenting what you fixed. Which some people are afraid to do because of litigation. And so it goes.

        Reply
      • Jon, I’ve been hearing from partners that “projects aren’t implemented as we agreed” since forever. When folks were doing more formal inspections of their own work, when the FS was experimenting with a more formal process of checking (EMS), they found that projects weren’t even carried out as the silviculturist designed them. One example I remember from a certain location was that planting contractors did the work according to the contract, but force account didn’t perhaps because they were not checked.

        Many reasons way before Trump was on the scene.

        I guess lawsuits are one way to do the continuous improvement cycle, but it seems unnecessarily adversarial and expensive compared to alternatives. Like checking, documenting, seeing what went wrong and fixing it, then documenting what you fixed. Which some people are afraid to do because of litigation. And so it goes.

        Reply
      • This is where ground-truthing, (or at least the threat of it), should come into play. As a Timber Sale Administrator, I would always assume that people were looking at my projects. On salvage projects, additional volume was always happening but, in green sales, I’m not a fan of giving timber folks a ‘blank check’. There is too much chance for corruption, and ‘acceptable damage’ not in the original plans.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Larry Harrell Fotoware Cancel reply