Old Growth Amendment – When can you cut down large/old trees?

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:

  1. 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;

  1. 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;

  1. amount, density, distribution and species composition

of old trees, downed logs, and standing snags

appropriate for the forest ecosystem type;

  1. vertical and horizontal distribution of old-growth

structures, including canopy structure and composition;

  1. 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;

  1. connectivity and the ability of old-growth obligate

species to move through the area and cross into

adjacent areas;

  1. culturally significant species or values, to include key

understory species;

  1. 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:

  1. 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;

  1. 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;

  1. for culturally significant uses as informed by tribes or

for de minimis use for local community purposes;

  1. in areas designated for research purposes, such as

experimental forests or research natural areas; or

  1. 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.

5 thoughts on “Old Growth Amendment – When can you cut down large/old trees?”

  1. 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.

    Reply
      • 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?

        Reply
  2. 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

    “Since 1982, we have learned more about what is important for a species to persist on the landscape, with an evolving understanding of important ecological concepts like resilience,
    connectivity, and adaptability, and of stressors such as climate change. For these reasons, instead of relying on the term ‘‘well-distributed,’’ the Department chose instead to include a more ecologically-based definition of a viable population, ‘‘with sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments’’ such that the population ‘‘continues to persist over the long term.’’

    NOGA

    “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.

    If climate (and other) resilience had been the centerpiece, I would have been more of a fan. But eco integrity was

    c) The purpose of this part is to guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment, and revision of land management plans that promote the ecological integrity of national forests and grasslands and other administrative units of the NFS.

    and the definition of eco int

    Ecological integrity. The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species
    composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human
    influence.

    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.

    Reply
    • 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’’

      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