If we can make it through the next month or so of “bad Forest Service and BLM” we can make it to “bad Trump,” and breath a sigh of relief. After all federal employees are wonderful, unless they do things (important people we don’t know) don’t like. I haven’t been following all the ins and outs of the NWFP amendment, but know readers are involved.
The U.S. Forest Service proposal, released Friday, would overhaul the Northwest Forest Plan that governs about 38,000 square miles (99,000 square kilometers) in Oregon, Washington and California.
***********
Much has changed in society and science since the Northwest Forest Plan was created,” Jacque Buchanan, regional forester for the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region, said in a statement. He said the proposal would help the agency adapt to shifting conditions, as global warming increases the frequency of droughts and other extreme weather events.
FWIW, I think Jacque uses she/her pronouns. Oh well.
Cutting more trees would help reduce wildfire risk and make communities safer, the study concluded. That would be accomplished in part by allowing cuts in some areas with stands of trees up to 120 years old — up from the current age threshold of 80 years.
The change could help foster conditions conducive to growing larger, old growth trees that are more resistant to fire, by removing younger trees, officials said.
A separate pending proposal from President Joe Biden’s administration aims to increase protections nationwide for old growth trees, which play a significant role in storing climate change-inducing carbon dioxide.
“Much has changed in society and science since the Northwest Forest Plan was created,” Jacque Buchanan, regional forester for the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region, said in a statement. He said the proposal would help the agency adapt to shifting conditions, as global warming increases the frequency of droughts and other extreme weather events.
The proposed plan also calls for closer cooperation between the Forest Service and Native American tribes to tap into tribal knowledge about forest management. Tribes were excluded when the 1994 plan was crafted.
Environmentalists greeted the proposal with skepticism. The group Oregon Wild said it was “deeply troubling” that the Forest Service would release the proposal just ahead of a change in presidential administrations.
“It appears that the Forest Service wants to abandon the fundamental purpose of the Northwest Forest Plan–protecting fish and wildlife and the mature and old-growth forests they need to survive,” John Persell, an attorney for the group, said in a statement.
It almost sounds like the FS is a separate entity.. the old “rogue agency” idea. Logically, there are a small number of possibilities.
1. The Biden Admin supports this decision.
2. The Biden Admin doesn’t care either way, everyone’s too busy looking for their next job.
3. Different entities in the Biden Admin disagree, but there is no conflict resolution system.
4. The Biden Admin doesn’t like the decision but is too disorganized to transmit that info to the FS.
5. The Biden Admin told the FS what to do, but the FS is blowing them off. (I consider this one least likely)
I disagree a bit with John P. (as quoted), I think it makes sense to cement in (insofar as possible) the work of the group they brought together (the FACA committee) before the next Admin kicks in.
The AP story does quote Travis Joseph of AFRC:
A timber industry representative who co-chaired an advisory committee on the Northwest Forest Plan said the proposed plan resulted from discussions involving committee members, the Forest Service and others.
“We want to see a modern approach to federal forest stewardship that protects us from catastrophic wildfires, reduces toxic smoke, meaningfully engages tribes, and delivers for our rural communities and workers,” said Travis Joseph, president of the American Forest Resource Council.
USDA Forest Service to Host Public Webinars on Northwest Forest Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Portland, Ore., November 18, 2024 —The USDA Forest Service invites the public to participate in informational webinars about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an amendment to land management plans within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area. The DEIS proposes solutions to address critical challenges such as wildfire resilience, economic sustainability, and climate change across 19.4 million acres of federally managed forests in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington.
The webinars will provide:
An introduction to the Northwest Forest Plan.
An overview of the proposed amendment to land management plans.
Key details about the proposed action and alternatives outlined in the DEIS.
Information on how to engage during the 120-day public comment period.
Webinar Schedule:
Wednesday, November 20, 5:00 PM – 6:30 PM – Register Here
https://tinyurl.com/2s3fec7t
Thursday, December 5, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM – Register Here
https://tinyurl.com/32bddmju
“The Northwest Forest Plan has guided forest management in the region for nearly 30 years. This amendment reflects new science, changing conditions, and the need to build resilience against wildfire threats,” said Jacque Buchanan, regional forester for the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region.
The draft EIS proposes measures to improve wildfire resilience, promote economic opportunities, support tribal collaboration, and ensure sustainable forest stewardship. The Forest Service is seeking public input on the DEIS to help shape the final plan, anticipated in 2025.
Comments on the DEIS can be submitted until March 17, 2025 on the Public Comment Portal. To view the DEIS and learn more about the proposed amendment, visit the Project Page.
This article may be found online here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD1216102
####
For a variety of reasons, the Northwest Forest Plan never achieved the planned timber outputs, especially from the matrix lands. Survey & Manage requirements were part of the reason, but lack of harvest in older matrix stands was also a part. So the Federal Advisory Committee provided some consensus recommendations on how to do that. All of the FAC public meetings were recorded and they provide a record of the discussions and rationale and the tradeoffs that were considered. The recording of the last meeting does a good job of capturing how the FS has not oriented itself towards meeting the full intent of the NWFP when it comes to communities and some possible ways for that to happen as things move forward.
A. you wouldn’t be interested in possibly summarizing that for the rest of us and I could post as an Anonymous post?
Funny, I thought #5 sounded like a possible winner. When I’ve gotten to watch the interplay between a “low-logging” administration and the Forest Service, it always looked like the FS, with a culture built on active management, pushed back every chance they could. This tradition may be related to the agency’s location in the USDA, where the Forest Service is kind of its own department, which allows #2-#4 to contribute. (I’m not sure this is any different from “rogue agency.”)
Outside of the new tribal components, which are extremely prescriptive, the action alternative plan components and resulting analysis are largely a qualitative interpretation of high level concepts strung together. Restoration + Resilience + Resistance + Ecological Integrity + Community Protection + Community Sustainability + Forest Stewardship + Treatment + Risk Reduction + Active Management…
I support each of these concepts, but they can be interpreted so broadly that there is no way to know how they will be applied at the project level. This makes it extremely difficult to analyze the effects with any certainty to many of the resources.
I do think that some sort of diameter limit, coupled with a pro-forest health provision, might be necessary. While I am not a big fan of diameter limits, it better protects the larger trees, regardless of their ages. the boundary between “mature” and “old growth” is pretty blurry, even between experts. We shouldn’t be depending on timbermarkers to make those decisions. (My first timbermarking job was Overstory Removal in an unlogged old growth forest. My crew mates were all GS-9 Permanent Foresters.)
I do know that trees grow at different rates, with ‘larger’ diameters at relatively young ages. Diameter limits would probably need to be adjusted for conditions. Of course, industry would have to ‘evolve or die’, and that will be painful for communities. I’m not sure if there will be any sort of ‘guarantee’ of timber volume, for the lumber industry, in this new amendment. Should there be? (controversial question, I know)
The amendment proposes to use stand age/origin year to determine old growth vs. mature.