There are some other recent threads here that have been discussing this question, and I thought it might be helpful to post the actual language from the draft of the amendment (Table 1) that would answer this question. It establishes criteria at the plan level that must be met by projects proposed in forests identified as old growth, as well as a guideline for removing “old trees” in other areas. I have to say my overall impression is that there are enough exceptions that it is hard to believe the Forest Service couldn’t find one that would allow removal of large/old trees in any project it proposes. On the other hand, this does put the burden on the Forest Service to demonstrate in the project record that the project would meet the exception, e.g. that it would in fact “reduce hazardous fuels.” (But any wood is a “fuel,” so what makes it “hazardous?”)
I think Standard 3 is interesting. If projects in old growth forests can not be for commercial timber production, I assume that these forests must then be classified as unsuitable for timber production?
An interesting omission: “resilience to climate change,” which is what the 2012 Planning Rule is all about.
I’ve added a few italics to help frame the structure (and I see that the copying messed up the numbering of the criteria ….).
(The comment period closes around September 21.)
Standard 2.a
Where conditions meet the definitions and associated criteria
of old-growth forest, vegetation management may only be for
the purpose of proactive stewardship. For the purposes of this
standard, the term “vegetation management” includes – but is
not limited to – prescribed fire, timber harvest, and other
mechanical/non-mechanical treatments used to achieve
specific silviculture or other management objectives (e.g.
hazardous fuel reduction, wildlife habitat improvement). For
the purposes of this standard, the term “proactive stewardship”
refers to vegetation management that promotes the quality,
composition, structure, pattern, or ecological processes
necessary for old-growth forests to be resilient and adaptable
to stressors and likely future environments. Proactive
stewardship in old-growth forests shall promote one or more of
the following:
- reduction of hazardous fuels to reduce the risk of loss
of old-growth forests to uncharacteristic wildfire, and to
facilitate the return of appropriate fire disturbance
regimes and conditions;
- resilience to insect and disease outbreaks that would
result in the loss of old-growth conditions;
1. ecological conditions for at-risk species associated
with old-growth forest, including conditions needed for
the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
- amount, density, distribution and species composition
of old trees, downed logs, and standing snags
appropriate for the forest ecosystem type;
- vertical and horizontal distribution of old-growth
structures, including canopy structure and composition;
- patch size characteristics, percentage or proportion of
forest interior, and connectivity;
1. types, frequencies, severities, patch sizes, extent, and
spatial patterns of disturbances;
1. successional pathways and stand development;
- connectivity and the ability of old-growth obligate
species to move through the area and cross into
adjacent areas;
- culturally significant species or values, to include key
understory species;
- species diversity, and presence and abundance of rare
or unique habitat features associated with old-growth
forests; or
1. other key characteristics of ecological integrity
associated with old-growth forests.
Standard 2.b
The cutting or removal of trees in old-growth forest for
purposes other than proactive stewardship is permitted when
(1) incidental to the implementation of a management activity
not otherwise prohibited by the plan, and (2) the area – as
defined at an ecologically appropriate scale – continues to
meet the definition and associated criteria for old-growth forest
after the incidental tree cutting or removal.
Standard 2.c
Deviation from Standard 2.a and 2.b may only be allowed if
the responsible official determines that vegetation
management actions or incidental tree-cutting or removal are
necessary for the following reasons and includes the rationale
in a decision document or supporting documentation:
- In cases where this standard would preclude
achievement of wildfire risk management objectives
within municipal watersheds or the wildland-urban
interface (WUI) as defined in Section 101 of the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (16 USC
6511) and its application by the local planning unit, or
would prevent protection of critical infrastructure from
wildfire;
- to protect public health and safety;
1. to comply with other statutes or regulations, valid
existing rights for mineral and energy resources, or
authorizations of occupancy and use made prior to
the old-growth amendment decision;
- for culturally significant uses as informed by tribes or
for de minimis use for local community purposes;
- in areas designated for research purposes, such as
experimental forests or research natural areas; or
- in cases where it is determined – based on best
available science, which includes Indigenous
Knowledge – that the direction in this standard is not
relevant or beneficial to a particular species or forest
ecosystem type.
Standard 3
Proactive stewardship in old-growth forests shall not be for the
purpose of timber production as defined in 36 CFR 219.19.
Guideline 3
To preserve the cultural and historical value of old trees
occurring outside of old-growth forests, vegetation
management projects should retain and promote the
conservation and survivability of old trees that are rare when
compared to nearby forested conditions that are of a
noticeable younger age class or unique in their ability to
persist in the current or future environment, and are not
detracting from desired species composition or ecological
processes.
I meant to point out one other thing: none of the old growth restrictions apply explicitly to removal of large/old trees. They apply to “proactive stewardship,” which is “vegetation management.” As I read it, this would not necessarily require justification for logging large/old trees in old growth forests if the project as a whole can meet the requirements.
Also, there is a reference to “likely future environments” in the definition of “proactive stewardship,” so I guess that’s how they cover climate change.
all this is pretty mind-numbing… invites mischief
The primary thing this language will do is concretize what USFS is already doing (and shouldn’t be), which is using eco-friendly-sounding language to justify logging large/old-growth trees, which runs counterproductive to their intended goal (resilience, restoration, etc). The agency wants to grant themselves the ultimate discretion to do whatever and call it “proactive stewardship.” To refrain from logging big trees is so difficult, isn’t it?
Hey Jon, I hate to be nit-picky but I didn’t remember “resilience to climate change” being what the 2012 Rule was all about. In fact, that’s what I argued it should be about.. to little avail. So I searched on resilience and found some mentions.
Interestingly, in the preamble, we have word for word in the 2012 Rule the same thing as the NOGA.. 2012 Rule
NOGA
”
If climate (and other) resilience had been the centerpiece, I would have been more of a fan. But eco integrity was
and the definition of eco int
Looking on the bright side, I like the idea of recycling verbiage. It’s already been written and cleared by some of the same characters as 12 years ago, and therefore saves time and effort.
I do remember it that way from when I worked on it, and it got written down a few times:
Here’s where “resilience” shows up in the introduction to the Preamble: “The Secretary emphasized that the Forest Service planning process provides an important means for integrating forest restoration, climate resilience, watershed protection, wildlife conservation, opportunities to contribute to vibrant local economies, and the collaboration necessary to manage our national forests.”
Also …
“a planning rule must address the following eight purposes and needs: 1. Emphasize restoration of natural resources to make our NFS lands more resilient to climate change, protect water resources, and improve forest health.”
“The Department finds that Modified Alternative A provides the best planning framework for meeting the various elements of the purpose and need by creating a rule that: 1. Emphasizes restoration of natural resources to make NFS lands more resilient to climate change, protect water resources, and improve forest health.”
“Plans will include plan components to maintain or restore ecological integrity, so that ecosystems can resist change, are resilient under changing conditions,” (note: ecological integrity is a means to achieving ecosystems that are resilient to climate change)
The rule defines a viable population as: ‘‘A population of a species that continues to persist over the long term with sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments’’