Guardian: US Forest Service failing to protect old growth trees from logging, critics say

Our old friends Chad Hanson and Dominick DellaSala are in the news again (or “news,” if you prefer), in an article in the UK’s Guardian. The article also quotes TSW regular Jim Furnish. Main point, aside from suggesting that the USFS isn’t doing enough to protect old-growth, is that they also aren’t protecting “mature” timber.  My opinion, for what it’s worth (not much!) is that this reads like a John Muir Project press release dressed up to seem like a news article.

The first photo in the article — caption, “Felled trees are stacked at the Humbolt Redwood Company sawmill in Scotia, California, in 2020,” are of relatively young coast redwoods, which can grow to that size in 50 years or so.

Subheading:

Biden’s efforts to save mature trees are not getting enough Forest Service support, according to some conservationists

Excerpt:

They are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.

Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife.

Yet, the US Forest Service has not included mature trees in this new plan, which also includes loopholes conservationists say allow ongoing felling of trees that are hundreds of years old. The Forest Service, responsible for 154 national forests and nearly 25m acres (10m hectares) of old growth trees in the US, has also largely declined to conduct required reviews of multiple logging projects amid a stampede of tree cutting that threatens the oldest, richest trees before any new curtailments are imposed.

“The largest logging projects I’ve ever seen are targeting the last, best remaining old growth trees left in the country,” said Chad Hanson, a forest ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project.

Hanson said the Forest Service had failed to properly follow the president’s directive, instead allowing logging that imperils the remaining trove of the US’s long-lived, untouched trees.

“We have a rogue agency in the Forest Service that is trying to benefit the logging industry before reforms take place,” he said. “The situation is rampant as far as I can tell and it risks squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect these incredible forests.”

55 thoughts on “Guardian: US Forest Service failing to protect old growth trees from logging, critics say”

  1. Once again, pointing at private logging, then claiming that is what the Forest Service does. We’ve seen this movie before, and sequels are rarely as good as the original. I’m sure that Hanson still clings to his desire to end all logging on public lands…. at any cost. I’m pretty sure that most western residents don’t want the ‘Whatever Happens’ un-management strategy.

    Reply
  2. I suspect it’s part of a media campaign on the NOGA.

    “In all, dozens of major logging projects are being advanced across the US, including the felling of 130,000 acres of old growth forest, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Chicago, in Plumas national forest in California; a plan to cut 95,000 acres in the Yaak River Valley in Montana that contains 600-year-old larch trees; and a program called the Telephone Gap project that aims to hack away a portion of ancient forest in Vermont that is 90% old growth and mature trees.”

    Wow, that article is amazing! According to them, the Central and West Slope Project on the Plumas is going to impact 130K acres of old growth forest.
    I looked at the EA and it looks like 137K acres of mature forest not OG. Here’s a link to the 254 page EA https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/plumas/?project=62873
    So that’s actually … not true.
    If they’re talking about the Black Ram project and OG, I examined it here.
    “All treatments within designated old growth areas are designed to maintain and improve old growth characteristics on the landscape, and ensure it persists into the future per the requirements in the Forest Plan. No harvest of old growth is planned under the project, except if needed for public safety or to address insect or disease hazard.”
    https://forestpolicypub.com/2022/07/12/lets-discuss-the-black-ram-project-on-the-kootenai/

    I wish journalists would be more careful. This article is just a “he said, she said” when the journalist could have investigated the claims. Of course, they don’t have the background to think “wait, I doubt there ARE 130K acres of OG on the Plumas” but still.

    Finally I think that portraying this is as being about the timber wars and then.. interviewing Imbergamo reinforces that framing. What about interviewing some fire scientists? Or members of the various Wildfire Resilience groups?

    Reply
    • Such extreme accusations are par for the course for the Hanson hit squad. They love the donations that such lies generate. With all that lawsuit money drying up, they go with the fleecing of their misguided (and gullible) supporters. It’s amazing what desperation will push people to do.

      I doubt that the public has any heartburn over the cutting of old 18″ dbh white fir, on the Plumas. The existing diameter limits still remain in place, protecting the true old growth from logging.

      Reply
        • In respect to Hanson’s exploits, I haven’t heard of him winning a lawsuit for many years. After the Rim Fire, and his change of tactics, salvage projects have not been stopped. Maybe he is just setting his sights higher, in his Quixotic quest to end all logging, everywhere.

          Reply
      • This is essentially slander, and I am sorry to see this appearing on TSW. The above first paragraph is just made up. Any criticism of ideas and/or actions which can be referenced, or at least are not personal attacks about scientist’s motives which a commenter cannot know, are fine, IMO.

        Reply
        • He has already stated, many times in the past, that his ultimate goal is to stop all logging, everywhere. His litigation group posted pictures of private logging on the Rim Fire (even before logging on Federal land was even approved), claiming that the Forest Service was clearcutting burned Federal lands. It took me less than 5 minutes to find the actual location, proving that the claims were positively false.

          Of course, Hanson KNEW that logging had not started on Forest Service land, as he was in the process of filing his losing lawsuit. It is my opinion that he allowed the posting on his group’s Facebook page, knowing full well that the logging was not Forest Service logging, although that was in the caption.

          We have also seen other pictures supplied by Hanson that show private logging, which he claims were Forest Service salvage clearcuts. I thoroughly debunked them here, when Matt posted them as a favor to Hanson. Additionally, neither Matt or Hanson could come up with Google Maps locations of the pictures they provided.

          Reply
          • What you stated above has little/nothing to do with this statement, nor is evidence provided —

            “Such extreme accusations are par for the course for the Hanson hit squad. They love the donations that such lies generate. With all that lawsuit money drying up, they go with the fleecing of their misguided (and gullible) supporters. It’s amazing what desperation will push people to do.”

            This statement was pure conjecture, and I will ignore it as will hopefully anyone who is interested in fair and constructive dialogue will. Others, who have a different ecological perspective than yours, are not “misguided,” or “lying.”

            Reply
            • Republicans also regard lies as “Freedom of Speech”. There are others here, calling out his statements as ‘untruthful’ when he claims that so much old growth will be cut.

              If he were to bring that ‘evidence’ into his salvage logging court battles, he would win those cases. Alas, he didn’t bring it into court, because it isn’t true. He claims things on the Internet that aren’t true, but refuses to bring them into court. Can you explain that? Why would he do such a thing?

              Hanson simply isn’t a trustworthy source for scientific information. He has zero objectivity, and ignores science that doesn’t match his extreme agenda.

              Reply
    • Do you have any idea how big the “insect or disease hazard” exception could be? (Given the expected judicial deference to the Forest Service “scientific” interpretation of that – and that we’re talking about old trees.) Does anyone know of a definition of this phrase anywhere?

      Reply
      • I believe the project is conditions based, so it’s not easy to say how what effect the exception will have. When CSO is listed after the election this fall, they are going to have change the project up quite a bit, as a BO is not easy to issue for such a large project with unknown effects.

        I have not reviewed the NEPA, but I assume the Plumas is using relative SDI to determine insect and disease hazard, based on this study:

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112721010975.

        Going for 25% of relative SDI max is going pretty low, as it leaves quite a bit of open growing space. I have seen one project propose to log trees up to 40 inches to achieve this. How does this relate to old growth and mature trees? I have been to a couple of plantations established in the late 1950s on some the best sites in the Sierra grow a 40 inch tree in less than 80 years, but most trees >40 inches are much older and the Sierra-wide number of trees >40 inches is way way way below historical numbers, and that was before all the fires.

        Foresters love this paper as it gives them a lot of flexibility and tosses the 30 inch diameter limit. One issue I see with this is how much effort it takes to maintain the ingrowth of shrubs and seedlings with that much light hitting the forest floor on really productive sites. SDI is not site specific, something that has always bothered me about the concept. Sorta throws ecology out the window in my mind.

        Reply
        • The “insect and disease hazard” quote is from the Black Ram project in Montana.
          PS I wish you wouldn’t stereotype foresters. I’m a forester. Many people on this site are foresters. When I talk about environmental groups, I just add “some” in front. It’s more accurate (they are all different, so are foresters). Take.. oh.. Jim Furnish and I. Or attend a Society of American Foresters Convention!

          Reply
        • I doubt (hope) that the diameter limit cannot be so casually tossed out. Sure, if that 58″ dbh pine is dead, go ahead and cut it. If it meets the guidelines for a ‘dying tree’, cut that one, too. If it isn’t going to die in the next 5-10 years, don’t cut it. The courts won’t support the cutting of old growth, because of some ’emergency’ declaration.

          Yes, the Plumas is turning out to be a ‘disaster area’. Cutting big green trees isn’t going to fix any forest problems. Some people seem to think that “thinning” means to take all the big ones, letting the little ones grow. That results in the most flammable of all forests. A forest of understory trees.

          Reply
          • Thanks Larry: We are in full agreement. If we are truly going to save our oldest trees we need to protect them. Dead trees, dying trees, and ladder fuels need to be regularly removed and roads need to be maintained in order to do so. If it is old-growth pine, the Douglas fir competition should be removed. And all such preservation attempts, in total, will produce far more tax revenues than they use.

            The most unnatural forestlands we have on public National Forests and BLM lands are industrial plantations established between WW II and spotted owls. These are grid-like constructs that are often a single species and typically reduce biodiversity and erase cultural landscapes of prior communities. They are now commercial size and should be clearcut in order to establish previous patterns of human occupancy and wildlife habitat.

            The surest sign of a healthy forest is healthy human populations in close proximity. Opinion, based on observation and experience.

            Reply
        • From the abstract: “Current management practices often prescribe conditions that maintain full competition to guide development of desired forest conditions.”

          I’m a fan of the natural range of variation as the desired condition for ecosystems (and not just because it’s a regulatory requirement). It’s not clear to me whether this statement represents a disagreement about the desired condition or just how to get there (using SDI). Also whether SDI gives an accurate picture of the distribution of tree sizes relative to NRV.

          (Maybe the comment about “foresters” overgeneralizes, but I can imagine people that would love this paper are those who can make money off of reducing density, or whose performance evaluation or budgets would benefit from doing that.)

          Reply
            • Somebody is getting bigger budgets and somebody is getting paid by that money. They’ll be happy. (Are there really that many places where big trees aren’t merchantable? I would assume these national forests have no timber volume targets?)

              Reply
        • Oh, and back to the main point – if the interpretation of the “insect and disease hazard” exception is “any time the density is greater than the desired condition,” that would pretty much make the exception the rule in a lot of places. The Black Ram decision could be flexible enough to mean, “No harvest of old growth is planned unless it’s being done to reduce density.” Duh.

          Reply
          • Or maybe it’s because there’s an ongoing bark beetle or other pest outbreak and the trees are already dead? We don’t know.

            Reply
          • Jon,
            I would encourage you to read the said paper in full, and the rest of the late Ryan Tomkins’ other work, and then take a trip out to the Plumas and see it yourself. Then the Klamath. Then the Shasta-Trinity.
            The world is changing fast, and forest management can’t all be done from an office or on paper written in an office from office based perspectives. The views on the ground, show something radically different – for all things that the USFS is supposed to manage, going back to the Pinchot Principles.

            Reply
            • You might want to review our previous discussion of this article.
              https://forestpolicypub.com/2022/02/03/operational-resilience-in-western-us-forests/

              My very last comment there is on the same question; you seem to be saying that, with fire suppression, regeneration of early seral species is too dense so we end up with “overstocked” old growth (a term used in a different ongoing thread). I am willing to be enlightened about how common this is without a trip to California.

              I did note in the paper that “some restoration studies in dense, fire-suppressed forests, have recorded mortality of large, long-lived trees following low-intensity treatments such as thinning small neighboring trees or re-introduction of surface fire.” And yet they are proposing resilience treatments “to restore tree vigor by creating the very low densities characterized by little resource competition that sustained frequent-fire forests.” This still leads me to think that the default should be no action (via a forest plan standard).

              Reply
        • I am glad to see you are bringing up the need to be thoughtful about the 25% relative SDI in reference to old growth and mature. There is a lot more to consider than just the relative SDI. There are some newer SDIs that are site specific and there are some that are adjusted for plant association.

          Reply
  3. There was a time perhaps when Forest Service timber sales fit the description of those described by the “research ecologists” who contributed to this article. That would be the 60s, 70s and 80s. Suggesting now though that “The largest logging projects I’ve ever seen are targeting the last, best remaining old growth trees left in the country” is so far from the truth it’s almost comical. Most of the mills in the PacNW re-tooled in the early 2000s as logging opportunities on federal land declined (mainly due to tax breaks for the logging industry and the boom/bust of the Asian lumber market, not the Spotted Owl legislation), along with the associated abundance of larger, mature and old growth trees. The remaining mills can’t even process or remove trees the size of designated “Old Growth”, nor do they want to. In 1991, sure, they were salivating over the last 5% of OG remaining in the West, but not anymore. On the east side of the Cascades, the logging industry is a ghost town. FS contracts have to hire trucks from the coast just to haul timber from the Ponderosa/Lodgepole forest hours to the east. In contrast to what this article would lead one to believe, contemporary timber sales in many of these areas are aimed at increasing the application of commercial thinning treatments prescribed by the agency that will remove younger aged or even dead trees from these areas that have been designated as containing significant old growth or mature forest structure. Not as lucrative as projects involving even aged, mono-crop plantations found across private timber lands all over Washington and Oregon, but for the right price, still profitable. These polices are in step with the current architecture of the timber industry, who are now largely equipped to handle 30-40 year old Douglas fir vs 80 year plus Sitka Spruce, Sequoias or Redwoods. It’s a win-win for local communities and the ecological integrity of public lands. So yes, its true the forests were mismanaged by the agency for decades…but this is no longer our grandparent’s Forest Service.

    Reply
    • Hanson would like people to think that the Forest Service is cutting 1000 year-old sequoias and redwood trees. Of course, sequoias don’t make good lumber, as was learned many decades ago. Of course, the USFS doesn’t have redwood trees on their National Forests, so that accusation falls flat, as well.

      The extremes on both sides of this issue are exercising their greed.

      Reply
      • There are definitely redwoods on USFS-managed lands. Many of them are in protected groves or Late Successional Reserves, and I don’t think there has been much (if any) redwood logged on USFS-managed lands since the 1990s, but there is redwood on USFS-managed land.

        Reply
        • If that is true, then those redwoods are probably within the protected streamside management zones. Yes, I am talking about coastal redwoods, and not giant sequoias, which are different species. Again, we see people accusing the Forest Service of doing what only private industry currently does. Is that all that the eco-industry has to offer? We continue to see these issues on social media, but we’re not seeing them bring their claims to the courts.

          Reply
  4. The fact remains that many USFS projects across the West that are either currently in planning or recently approved do not protect large/old (>150 yr old) trees from logging, and the Guardian article points to examples of this. The science is overwhelmingly clear that large/old trees are most critical to retain for wildlife, carbon, etc and do not need to be removed in order to achieve fuels reduction / resiliency / restoration goals. If the agencies would make this one change, so much controversy, litigation, etc. could be put to rest.

    Reply
  5. Old ponderosa pine in a stand can be thinned to decrease the canopy bulk density, and help these stands become more resilient. Old Doug fir in a ponderosa pine stand (dry site) need to be removed, period! As you tend toward wetter and wetter climax species, those stands need to be set back to favor more intolerant species; that’s just plain old ecology! Management of both the fiber and fuels, residual and created, will prepare these stands for more resiliency for the future.

    Reply
  6. ‘Removing old-growth trees is necessary for resilience’ may be your opinion, but is not where the vast majority of empirical research and expert consensus is on this issue. Some examples of forest ecologists that have emphasized this in relation to western dry forest mgmt, and there are many more —

    “Old-growth trees, especially large old-growth trees of all species, definitely qualify as ‘ecological keystones’ given their central roles in ecosystem function, wildlife habitat, resilience as live trees and as large persistent snags and logs after death. In general, we recommend retaining trees of all species older than 150 years of age as part of dry forest restoration projects – even if they are within the crown of an old ponderosa pine tree.” ~Franklin et al. 2013

    “In the context of forest restoration, we recommend that managers take the divisive issue of old tree harvest off the table, and instead focus on thinning young in-growth trees (i.e., those trees that established after Euro-American settlement) that have established around and among old trees and tree clumps. Focusing harvest on young trees will reduce competition, continuity of crown fuels, and contagion of host-specific tree enemies such as bark beetles, without causing conflict over proposed harvest of any remaining large trees. Such an approach is consistent with current guidelines for restoration and climate change adaptation in dry ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests.” ~Clyatt et al. 2016

    “Enhancing forest resilience does not necessitate widespread cutting of any large-diameter tree species. Favoring early-seral species can be achieved with a focus on smaller trees and restoring surface fire, while retaining the existing large tree population.” ~Mildrexler et al. 2023

    “Because old trees are rare in most frequent-fire forests of western North America, it is imperative to conserve them where they exist.” ~Fiedler et al. 2007

    “[Do] not thin mature and old groups of trees except to remove young trees within these groups to reduce ladder fuel.” ~Reynolds et al. 2013

    “Cutting larger trees in a stand is likely to create future problems and should not be done if long-term landscape health is the primary objective.” ~Perry et al. 2004

    “Silvicultural activities that focus on removing dominant trees will not reduce potential fire intensities and stand mortality, nor will they contribute to creation of forest structure and composition characteristic of older forest.” ~Franklin et al. 2008

    “In management aimed at accelerating the recovery of old-growth structures, protection of all pre-Euro-American trees is needed to ensure that this restoration truly leads to old forests.” ~Baker et al. 2007

    Reply
    • That certainly seems like enough scientific support to justify a default forest plan standard of “don’t do it” in these forest types. If there is that rare site-specific case to be made, make the Forest Service make it and amend the plan for that project.

      Reply
      • And you think overstocked old growth, fire dependent species is a good thing? If we are seeing climate shifts, and we are, it just depends on how “natural” it is, then you will have either major outbreaks of bark beetles, mega fires, or both. Not too pretty a picture seeing old growth incinerated over thousands of acres.

        The Wallow fire accomplished an 11 mile, sustained, running crown fire in mainly old growth ponderosa. Of the over half million acres that burned, 30 plus percent was high intensity (BARC satellite data), ponderosa pine. That’s over 150,000 acres of black stems. To not thin old growth in dry forest types is certainly a futile call on ecology! GTR 310 tells the story quite well…..

        Reply
        • “And you think overstocked old growth, fire dependent species is a good thing?”
          I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term “overstocked old growth” on dry sites, which I’m assuming means there are too many big trees (not too many trees growing under the old growth). If it’s rare, that would support my point that it should be set up as an exception that requires a site-specific plan amendment when that case can be made. If it’s common on a national forest, then maybe that forest could take a different approach in its forest plan (which is hopefully supported by the best available science for that forest).

          Reply
    • To somebody be who won’t use their name and cite old research I call horse manure! I’m not a theoretical forester, I’m a dirt forester practitioner, having worked all over the West and South. There are conditions that can meet goals laid out over time, that we learn from. Research is grand but it must stay current!

      I believe the Southwest has the research and expertise in practice to at least identify silvicultural opportunities to dealing with forests under stress. Heaven knows it burns extremely well down there.

      Mexican Spotted Owl is a T & E Specie that depends on dense ponderosa pine, and protected activity centers for successful species conservation. The USFWS affirms over 70% of that population has been lost in past several years. Logging? Nope, wildfires; loving a species to death!

      Reply
  7. It’s too bad that the name “Hanson” provokes such a knee-jerk reaction. The real indictment in this article is (m emphasis added):

    “The Forest Service – which has defended its approach – approved 31 logging projects covering 116,460 acres of old growth forests just between December and April, a recent AGENCY REPORT states. A further 18 planned cutting projects within old growth forests are being considered.”

    “However, when the GUARDIAN asked the Forest Service about the status of 29 contentious logging projects across the US, the agency confirmed only five had been reviewed, with many rejected for assessment because of a supposed lack of old growth, or because the projects had started before the memo, even though such a constraint was not stipulated in the original edict.”

    This is about trust (again) where the agency doesn’t appear to be walking the talk (it’s not about the messenger). If this is saying that forests have sent in a project because they think it affects old growth and the WO told them it doesn’t, that’s a little hard to believe. If it’s the public submitting projects for review, I hope there is some communication about why the agency doesn’t see the same old growth that the public does.

    Reply
    • Jon, “knee-jerk” is appropriate with Hanson et al. They write that the USFS “approved 31 logging projects covering 116,460 acres of old growth forests just between December and April,” but the projects are not designed to cut vast swathes of old-growth, as they imply. Hanson and other enviros often cry “logging in old-growth forests!” when these projects are thinning and fuels reduction aimed at conserving OG.

      Reply
      • This is the correct response. Simply operating in areas of potential old growth based on FIA data ≠ removing old growth on the ground. The Guardian is, unsurprisingly, providing a fig-leaf of legitimacy to a Hanson press release here. A lot of work going on via unexamined definitions (leaving aside from the thornyness of old-growth definitions, “approved” , “logging”, and “in” are carrying a lot of water here, turning the reader’s mind to fern gully)

        Reply
      • They did not write what you quoted. The Forest Service did, according to the article. I would agree that “covering” is ambiguous and readers might take that where they want.

        Reply
    • A simple point that, if noticed, would take nearly all the wind out of hanson etcs, sales pitch, sorry, story here. Approval to operate in a stand that FIA projects as potential old growth does not mean that old growth is being removed, or that it is even present.

      Reply
  8. The central issue raised by this Guardian article is that numerous USFS projects designed under the auspices of ‘fuels reduction / resiliency / restoration’ continue to remove a significant volume of ‘old growth’ trees >150 years from stands of any structural stage of development. Any credible forest scientist will tell you there is no ecological justification for this >90% of the time, particularly in dry, frequent-fire forests. Even consensus recommendations recently released by the federal advisory committee for revising the NW Forest Plan agree —

    “The committee recommends that there be no timber harvest of individual trees 150 years or older in dry forests in any land use allocation at the time a project-level NEPA decision is signed. The use of tree age in dry forest is intended to conserve old trees that are most likely to be adapted to future conditions while allowing for the removal of [younger/smaller] trees that have contributed to degradation of resilient dry forest conditions.” (p. 36).
    https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd1188978.pdf

    As someone pointed out earlier, the agency could easily develop a process by which valid (and rare) exceptions to a prohibition on logging old-growth trees could be utilized. The controversy surrounding this issue isn’t about the science, it’s about resistance to change. But if you disagree and have published peer-reviewed science that asserts there are valid ecological reasons to log significant numbers of trees >150 yrs from western dry forests, let’s see it. There’s quite a large body of literature that concludes the opposite.

    Reply
    • Anonymous, the article may seem to suggest that “numerous USFS projects designed under the auspices of ‘fuels reduction / resiliency / restoration’ continue to remove a significant volume of ‘old growth’ trees >150 years from stands of any structural stage of development.” But that is NOT the case — far from it. The article is, at best, misinformation, in my opinion as a forester and longtime student of the USFS’s forest management. It is also my opinion that Mr. Hanson and Mr. Della Sala and others promote such misinformation for their own purposes.

      Reply
    • Hanson continues to oppose the kinds of thinning projects in the Sierra Nevada, where clearcuts and old growth harvesting was voluntarily banned back in 1993. The diameter limits continue to be at 30 inches in diameter. Additionally, there are canopy-preserving guidelines, as well. The truth is that the average diameter of trees being cut is around 15 inches. Hey, even some trees that are less than 150 years old are not being cut, if they occupy a good place in the forest. A 130 year old tree can be quite large, and those are the kinds of trees that should be left to grow, becoming our future old growth.

      Can you tell us just HOW this is bad for those forests?

      Reply
    • A. (1) I see many buzzwords.. “significant volume of old-growth trees” greater than 150 years. 1. “significance” is in the eye of the beholder. 2. Who decided that OG was 150 years? This being 2024, I guess that would make the key date 1874, which of course means many different things both historically and growth-wise across the country. That date can’t have any biological, ecological or historical meaning.
      (3) I don’t remember a requirement for federal land actions that they must have an “ecological” justification. Certainly things like campgrounds and ski areas are not good for “ecology”. In addition, if we were to investigate it more closely, we would see that different species of plants and animals prefer different conditions. So I guess we’d need to define what it means to be “ecological”.
      (4) the consensus NWFP was not a science group, and the fact that the timber industry rep agreed to it (no timber harvest of individual trees 150 years) suggests it’s not about timber. I’m wondering how folks are supposed, in practice, to tell the tree’s age? I suppose the FAC committee addressed this.
      (5) conceivably, I, a forest geneticist, would be more of an expert on tree adaptation than others (if we are basing this on “science”). so the committee’s claim that “trees from the past are more likely to be adapted to the future unprecedented climate than seedling produced from natural regeneration today.. kind of makes assumptions about tree adaptation (not their area of expertise) and future climate. But they did say “most likely” so..

      So you see, different sciences.. fire science, pathology, entomology, genetics and so on might come to different conclusions. There is not one “science.”
      I would argue that there already is a process for valid exceptions to logging old growth trees, but we may disagree both on what’s valid, and what’s old growth.

      So a) the test is not “valid “ecological” reasons. b) therefore published peer-reviewed “science” is irrelevant, c) again, what are “significant numbers”?

      Reply
  9. It’s odd that someone named “anonymous” has the audacity to speak on behalf of “any credible forest scientist.” My strong suspicion is that he/she/they are/is not a credible forest scientist themself. And same with their supposed “large body of literature.” Strong claims for a nobody.

    We seem to have several Anonymous, anonymous, and Anon participants in this forum — some very credible and contribute to discussions, a few presumptuous know-it-alls, and a couple of blatant trolls. Or maybe it’s the same hidden person with multiple personalities? At the least I think they should be assigned numbers so that there is some indication of their perspective and ability.

    Reply
  10. 150 years = old growth tree comes from the published literature. Many researchers, incl some of studies quoted earlier, have adopted this as an appropriate threshold for defining ‘old’ — mostly bc trees at this age have developed important attributes (increased fire resistance,, wildlife habitat features, carbon storage, etc.) that are significantly different from younger/smaller trees. Tree age can be converted to diameter for a given species and site class pretty easily, and there are also visual guides for identifying trees of this age cohort.

    The FS itself has been and continues to underscore the importance of forest restoration / ecological resiliency / and fire hazard reduction in the purpose and need for almost all of their projects in the western US. By definition, these stated objectives are ecological, especially in comparison to the ‘old days’ when purpose and need was usually centered around generating X board feet of timber, contributing to a local employment target or some other socio-economic goal. Given that these projects often identify a specific desired **ecological** condition (e.g. forests that approximate historical stand structures, or minimize fires above a specific flame length and/or rate of spread), then they obviously need to be based on the best available science about how to achieve these. And logging large/old trees is almost always antithetical to these desired outcomes. This isn’t an opinion, it’s what the large majority of published research and recognized forest/fire science experts have to say on this topic. So to say that the peer-reviewed fire and forest science is “irrelevant” is pretty absurd (and also likely a violation of NEPA — I’d like to see the agency claim that the science directly relevant to addressing their purpose & need is “irrelevant”).

    It’s apparent from exchanges like this that many foresters don’t like the message that large/old trees should be retained as part of federal land mgmt projects. But I have yet to hear one good argument, science-based or otherwise, why it should continue. Change is a difficult thing.

    Reply
    • I would be interested in your response to (I assume a different) “Anon” above regarding what seems to be the idea of “overstocked old growth” (in a particular research article), which is being used to justify removing large/old trees. Why is that not a “good argument?” (I asked for clarification from that Anon on 8/5, but have not seen a response.)

      Reply
      • Question about “overstocked old growth” — Yes there are old stands in dry forest types that have excessive tree densities, but the trees that need to be reduced are the **small to intermediate-sized** cohort that have established as a result of past fire suppression and high-grade logging, not large-diameter trees >150 yrs old. Every assessment that has looked at large/old tree abundance in western landscapes has found that OG trees are currently at significant deficit relative to historic conditions (primarily due to past logging), which has major adverse consequences for fire resilience, wildlife, carbon, etc, etc. And regarding issue of whether some large/old trees need to thinned out in dry forests on basis of competition/to create growing space, here’s what Jerry Franklin and co-authors (2013) had to say —

        “When clusters of old ponderosa pine trees are encountered, silviculturists sometimes assume that significant competition must be taking place within these clusters, particularly if they observe mortality of individual trees. This inference of significant competition is unwarranted, however, and may reflect the silviculturist’s projection of the competitive processes of tightly spaced young trees. The old trees in these clusters have not only survived that period of youthful competition, but almost certainly have established mutual relationships with each other, such as significant root grafting and
        shared mycorrhizal masses. Thus, these clusters of old trees are more likely to be mutually supportive than competitive.”

        Other researchers have come to similar conclusion, for example Reynolds et al. 2013 in reference to Southwest pine forests — “[Do] not thin mature and old groups of trees except to remove young trees within these groups to reduce ladder fuel.” This is because western dry forests are inherently clumpy and the clumps of large/old trees play a number of important ecological roles.

        Given the numerous values associated with large/old trees as well as their current deficit, the burden of proof should be on the agency to present compelling evidence that retaining them is counterproductive to achieving desired future conditions (resiliency, fuel loading, historic structure). If someone is aware of substantive, site-specific analysis that FS has conducted along these lines, would like to see it.

        Reply
        • So would I. You (Franklin) directly refute the position in North et. al. that density equates to competition on these sites. Especially, because it “may reflect the silviculturist’s projection of the competitive processes of tightly spaced young trees,” as opposed to, I suppose, an ecologist. This would also explain cases mentioned where thinning has had adverse effects on residual big/old trees.

          So removal of big/old trees on such sites is generally not needed now for either forest resilience or fuel reduction.

          Reply
    • Anon, you did not answer my points, but keep going back to “published literature” argument by authority. It also seems that specifics.. species, site, for example, get overwhelmed in generalities (150 years). 150 may be a young Bristlecone or a very old lodgepole (beetle bait, in some places). It doesn’t make scientific or any other kind of sense to “pick a number” and then state that
      “mostly bc trees at this age have developed important attributes (increased fire resistance,, wildlife habitat features, carbon storage, etc.) that are significantly different from younger/smaller trees” .

      I would argue that fuel reduction and HRV can be different. Fuel reduction is more mechanical, considering fuels, flames and things like that. Approximating “historical stand structures” may not be the same thing at all as intentionally treating stands to change fire behavior. I am not the agency, so I guess I am talking about forests, and trying to understand why people disagree.

      I agree that generally old and large trees should be retained. But there are exceptions. I guess what concerns me the most is generalizing, from a place with specific conditions, a specific mix of species and wildlife that depends on them, and neighboring areas with different conditions and different values that should be protected from wildfire.

      I’m also enough of a scientist to know that numbers like “150 years” broadly applied are not “science” even if (some) scientists say so. The opinions of scientists, in and of themselves, are not “science”. Imagine what a study would be like that would come up with 150 and not 145, or 167.8.

      Reply
      • “I agree that generally old and large trees should be retained. But there are exceptions.” So this seems to be a point of agreement (though I might clarify that this refers to both old and large trees, rather than a tree must be both old and large), and all we really need to talk about is how and when to determine the exceptions?

        Reply
      • Sharon you have a problem with using 150 years as a threshold for determining large/old trees that should generally be retained as part of USFS projects. First, reminder that my comments have been focused on western dry, relatively frequent-fire forest types, where the arguments for altering stand structure to reduce fire hazard / create more resiliency have some ecological merit, and where much of the agency’s focus currently is in terms of ‘increasing pace and scale’ of treatments.

        The world is a continuum, but operationally, land mgmt agencies use quantitative thresholds to guide their actions all the time — for example, equivalent clearcut acres in a watershed, # of snags per acre, open road density in deer winter range, width of riparian conservation areas, etc. etc. Similar to retaining trees >150 yrs, these and other standards are all based on reasonable interpretations of the available scientific evidence and are intended to meet specific objectives. Are you suggesting all these other threshold-based standards, because they are discrete points along a continuum, are also ‘unscientific’ and therefore unwarranted?

        As I mentioned previously, there are evidence-based reasons why 150 yrs represents a reasonable threshold for identifying old trees that should be retained — because research has shown that trees of this age exhibit numerous important attributes and functions that are not provided by and are qualitatively different from smaller/younger trees. Forest scientists have stated in various ways that large old trees are critically important — they form the “living backbone” (Franklin et al. 2013), “are the key contributor to resilience in dry forests” (Johnson et al. 2008) and represent “an ecological cornerstone to which forest restoration strategies can be anchored” (North et al. 2009). You seem to want to dismiss recognized experts who are drawing conclusions like this based on many years of research.

        The other point I’ll address is your suggestion that fuels/fire risk reduction is not the same as HRV — presumably you’re arguing that protecting large trees may somehow be counterproductive from the perspective of one of these goals but not the other. I agree that they are not exactly the same, although there is usually a wide degree of overlap between the two (and USFS often confuses/conflates them when discussing project objectives). But if you look at the relevant fire science, you’ll find that retaining large/old trees is explicitly recommended as one of the cornerstone principles for creating fire-resilient forests. Agee & Skinner (2005, ‘Basic principles of fuel reduction treatments’):

        “The fourth principle in a fire resilient forest strategy is to keep the large trees in the stand if they are present. These are the most fire-resistant trees, as they have the tallest crowns and thickest bark…Where large trees are not present, and a thinning prescription is considered, the largest of the small trees should be reserved.”

        A number of other researchers come to similar conclusions, for example North et al. (2009): “Research suggests that for managing fuels, most of the reduction in fire severity is achieved by reducing surface fuels and thinning smaller ladder-fuel trees. What is considered a ladder fuel differs from stand to stand, but typically these are trees in the 10- to 16-inch d.b.h. classes. If trees larger than this are thinned, it is important to provide reasons other than for ladder-fuel treatment.”

        “We suggest modifying current treatments to focus on reducing surface fuels, actively thinning the majority of small trees, and removing only fire-sensitive species in the merchantable, intermediate size class. These changes would retain most of the current carbon-pool levels, reduce future wildfire emissions, and favor stand development of large, fire-resistant trees that can better stabilize carbon stocks” ~North et al. (2009)

        So the underlying reasons for retaining old trees may be somewhat different if your goal is strictly fuels/fire or HRV, but the upshot in terms of management is the same — don’t remove them. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the agency’s stated goals around forest resiliency/fuels reduction/HRV will not be constrained by retaining them, and in fact the opposite result (multiple long-term positives) is much more likely. So the real $10,000 question is, why doesn”t USFS adopt such an approach?

        Reply
  11. As for Anonymous – I think it’s regrettable that they cannot post using their names, but I respect their concern for retaliation (recalling Debonis and many others who stuck their necks out) and a need for privacy. Their voices are needed.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading