Thank you for your ongoing interest in the National Old Growth Amendment. On December 20, 2023, the Forest Service published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for consistent land management plan direction for old-growth forest conditions across the National Forest System. On June 21, 2024, the Forest Service published the notice of availability of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). During the 90-day comment period that followed the publication of the DEIS, the Agency hosted virtual engagements, information sessions and regional field meetings across the country. Over 300,000 comments were received and analyzed. Through a forthcoming Federal Register notice, the Agency has decided to withdraw the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and will not be publishing a final environmental impact statement. This effort has helped us to identify a wealth of best available scientific information on old growth, and our engagement with you has allowed us to gain important insights that can help to guide our future stewardship of these special forests. To learn more about our ongoing work with old growth forests, please see the Mature and Old Growth website and Inside the Forest Service. Again, thank you for your interest and engagement throughout the National Old Growth Amendment process. |
Shocking. What a waste of time, effort, and money. If they knew they couldn’t complete this prior to the next election, they never should have gone down this road. Of course, this was driven by the Biden Administration (who had the hubris to think they would be reelected) so the question is, was the Forest Service on board with it or was it just something they had to do? Did the FS play out the clock, expecting a change in Administration? How do the employees who worked on this thing feel now? Just chalk it up to “It all pays the same.” Did it accomplish something that can be used in the future as Randy Moore now suggests? Who knows.
I truly can’t say whether or not there was some good in it or not. I didn’t put that much effort into understanding it. Maybe because I foresaw the future. I don’t think it was the doomsday scenario that the timber industry and others presented. As I understand it, it did not rule out management activities in old-growth or mature stands. This just seems like another sad chapter of wasted effort.
I see it as good riddance; we were designating old growth blocks in the early 1980’s, and all it did was identify “special” management considerations. And of course that meant taking special designation, for enviro groups to rally around opposing any action (except preservation) where designated. I’m all for old growth, but just like “Roadless” they begin to take on a life of their own – in both redefining old growth parameters and how much ch we need.
I say good riddance to the NOGA, but do feel like the FS wasted lots of time, and done a bit of “trammeling” of some employees pride.
You may be right Jim, I don’t know. This was probably one of those good intentions with a flawed process. Was it setting the stage for future litigation? Probably. Do I think good things will happen for Old Growth without this? No, I don’t.
Bill Imbergamo from the Federal Forest Resource Coalition said “Most of them (old growth) are already off limits to timber harvest.” If that’s the case, why did they make such a big fuss about it? In 2004, when the Black Hills NF’s plan was amended, old growth was at less than 1%. 20 years later it is at less than 1%. And so it goes.
As with any good intention, “inclusion creep” rears its ugly head. Look at what Roadless, Wilderness and a litany of other management identifiers have been “adjusted” to include just about everything any do-gooder could dream up. I’m afraid “old growth” would dig into middle aged stands. I still remember being snake bit on that first old growth declaration; not only did stands meet the definition (okay so far) but then “replacement stands” were needed! Not one, but two “candidate” areas for each old growth block. What?…..
Certainly it was a solution – political one at that, in search of a problem….
It wasn’t too many years ago when you could walk into a District Forester’s office and ask to see a map or some aerial photos of any stands or patches of old-growth. No problem. They knew the forest, they knew what was considered old-growth, and they knew where such trees could be found. Now this boondoggle — trying to take a logger’s term and turn it into some kind of science so that it could be regulated by the government. If we had only been so fortunate with the Clinton Plan . . .
There is at least one cold reality that the new Administration hasn’t talked about. How will the courts react to the plans to increase old growth logging ( ‘active management’ )? The Ninth Circuit Court will scrutinize every project that comes before them, and I doubt they will give ‘deference’ to any proclaimed ’emergency situation’.
The Republican Congress and the land management agencies have 2 years to ‘do something’ (that will make it through the courts). In the words of the Orange King, “We’ll see what happens”.
*buys popcorn*
Larry: “Active management” doesn’t mean “old-growth logging,” or even close. It could mean active old-growth maintenance, for example. But you are right to question “how the courts might react.” That’s exactly who’s been running our forests into the ground — lawyers, not foresters.
I remain hopeful that the new administration will address this mess and do something positive about it, such as reinstitution active management of our public lands, as initially envisioned and outlined in the 1897 Organic Act.
For some, they want “old growth logging” to be the biggest part of “active management”. Some don’t care that “Overstory Removal” doesn’t reduce fire risks or resilience.
Here in California, there are substantial acreages that cannot be economically ‘managed’, due to slopes beyond 30%. There aren’t very many cable logging outfits in California, and thinning by helicopter is too expensive.
There’s going to be a ‘showdown’ in the courts, when it finally reaches the Appeals Courts. Is that acceptable to everyone? Will Trump attempt an “Environmental Insurrection”? Will he remove all the Spanish names from American locations? How about the French, and Native American place names? Does he not know that Greenland isn’t really as big as it shows on his map?
Questions, questions, questions.
Hi Larry:
I don’t know anyone who thinks “active management” mostly means “old growth logging.” Is this another instance of words being bastardized by the environmental industry, such as they did with the words “conservation” and “critical?” Always hard to say if these changes in definition are coming from activists, politicians, or the legal profession.
Note: In answer to your questions, my best guess is “probably not,” except “not sure, but he probably does” on the Greenland mapping issue.
You probably dont know anyone that thinks buying a plastic Christmas tree is better for the environment than cutting one, but millions of people do! (I definitely do not.) So many people who consider themselves “earth friendly” think that cutting any tree is evil. I do believe this was the mindset that launched NOGA.