Now, I was never a fan of the NOGA process. Keeping old trees alive can be hard. National Forest employees know where their old-growth is and forest plans already have restrictions on doing things in old-growth. I seldom agree with Andy Kerr, but even he said that the FS doesn’t say that treatments are commercial when OG stands are treated. Whether you believe that “other reasons” are mostly legitimate (as I do) or excuses to go after old-growth for sawmills (as Andy K. appears to), it doesn’t change the fact that the paperwork right now says that in very few places is cutting trees for commercial purposes allowed in old-growth.
I remember hearing from someone in the FS something along the lines that timber cutting in OG stands for commercial purposes are only allowed now in two places, Alaska and a forest in Region 1. If others know more about this, please comment. And remember, the same groups that wanted OG “protection” also wanted mature “protection.” If I looked at the list of some of the supportive NGOs, it sounded like some of the same from the old “zero cut” campaign.
But there are interesting questions to be raised. Why now? The Biden Admin recently approved the Rock Springs RMP (conservation-y, against wishes of locals and elected officials), Lava Ridge Wind Project (developmenty- against wishes of locals and elected officials), new Monuments are coming from a conservation-y perspectives, and there’s the Solar PEIS (we’ll look at that one further). Can we see a pattern of these last-minute give-aways? Maybe the Admin has friends in the renewable and conservation world and so is doing sometimes symbolic gestures of support, since many of them can be overturned in the next Admin. Against that, though, we see “no” to NOGA. Someone knows the answer, but they’re not telling, at least not now.
E&E News Story: Headline: Biden Admin Nixes Old-Growth Forest Plan
As usual, the best coverage (in terms of least biased greatest depth) is from E&E News, so thanks to reporter Marc Heller.
But proponents of old-growth protections said abandoning the plan was, in their view, a better alternative than leaving it to the next administration. Had the administration left the effort intact, the incoming Trump administration might have looked to implement it in ways counter to the outgoing administration’s goals, said Ellen Montgomery, public lands campaign director for Environment America.
My guess would be that they would stick a fork in it, not “implement it in ways counter to” Biden Admin goals. It doesn’t add up to me. I looked into Environment America a bit-here’s their form letter on old growth. It seems to be a c4.
Centuries-old trees are still growing across the country, but on federal forest lands many of them are vulnerable to logging. Once these ancient trees are cut down, old-growth trees will be lost forever. Our older forests are still being logged at an alarming rate — this directly undermines the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change and protect 30% of lands and waters by 2030.
Old-growth and mature trees form the backbone of their ecosystems, absorbing carbon dioxide, maintaining genetic diversity and providing habitat for all sorts of life.
I urge you to take action to protect older forests and trees on public lands in the United States from logging, and to ensure federal agencies work to recover these carbon rich landscapes for their climate, biodiversity, and watershed benefits to our nation.
This is their 2022 list of funders, many of the usual groups and foundations:
Environment America Research & Policy Center would like to thank the following foundations and organizations for supporting our work in fiscal year 2022: 444S Foundation, American Heart Association, American Littoral Society, Bydale Foundation, CLASP, Clean and Prosperous America, Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Hittman Family Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, Oregon Wild, Overbrook Foundation, Park Foundation, Patagonia, Paul M. Angell Family Foundation, The New-Land Foundation, The Protection Campaign – a project of Resources Legacy Fund, The Stone and Holt Weeks Foundation, The Tilia Fund and Weeden Foundation.
Maybe we can see through this list where the impetus was for the proposal, and maybe these folks are so high-level and anti-logging they don’t understand that many of us see tree-users as useful partners and not enemies. Without doing a check, I’d guess many are headquartered outside dry forest country. So that explanation doesn’t ring true to me.
I did get a chuckle out of this AP headline:
Biden administration withdraws old-growth forest plan after getting pushback from industry and GOP
Hmm. I know it’s just a headline, but a) this has been getting pushback since it was introduced, and b) the Biden Admin has been getting pushback from western elected officials on the other projects that are going through in these last days. And not just public lands, think of putting millions of offshore acres off-limits to oil and gas.
But those exceptions were not enough for the timber industry and Republicans in Congress who bitterly opposed the administration’s proposal. They said it wasn’t needed since many forested areas already are protected. And they warned it could be devastating to logging companies that rely on access to cheap timber on public lands.
I read some industry comments and I don’t think the industry folks said that. I wish the reporter had quoted whoever said that.
Anyway, that doesn’t make sense either- Biden Admin suddenly realizes the idea is unpopular in some quarters.
How the U.S. got no old growth forest protections from the Biden Administration (commentary)
At least Dominick DellaSalla spreads the blame around in this Mongabay essay:
All sides are to blame for a failed NOGA policy that was the result of: (1) definition paralysis that delayed action; (2) rebranding strategies by the timber industry that positioned logging as the solution to all “forest health” issues rather than the problem itself; (3) questionable agency threat assessments that supported the industry narrative; and (4) the lack of a unified vision for forest protection by conservation groups. Let me break the failure to act down, piece by piece.
As more and more communities participate in fuel treatment projects, and see the impacts when fire comes toward their communities, and as more and more homeowners do mitigation themselves, the gap between the “no cutting narrative” and peoples’ lived experience grows. At the end of the day, people believe their own eyes and lose trust in the folks that tell them things that aren’t true. Especially when their experience is downplayed, e.g., fuel treatments as “specious arguments.”
A similarly specious argument to save forests from burning up is being played out not only in the NOGA process but in every dry forest region of the country, as logging is rebranded as community fire protection, even as fires race across logged landscapes.
*************
But none of the above effectively answer the question in my mind “why stick a fork in this before the next Admin comes in, when sister department Interior is spurting out equally, or more, unpopular decisions at a rapid rate?” My only guess would have to do with the fact that there are more politicals and fewer career folks around headquarters at the BLM, but I have to think that there is more to it than that.
Maybe the Forest Service didn’t like the results – when they surveyed and found that PINYON-JUNIPER constituted the most old growth. The very LAST thing either the FS or BLM wants to do is protect PJ forests. They’re too useful as scapegoats for Sage-grouse declines, and “treatment” bones to throw at ranchers who’ve depleted allotments and want the Feds. to pay for massive deforestation to generate more forage. The agencies have never valued PJ at all – because it has almost no “merchantable” value. This ignores, of course the value of potential pine nut production.
Don’t you think that it is because there are still a handful of people that have the ability to read the writing on the wall? This thing was DOA when the Trump administration takes over. At least the Biden Administration can claim they killed rather than leaving it in the hands of Trump.
Bill Imbergamo from the Federal Forest Resource Coalition said “Most of them (old growth) are already off limits to timber harvest.” If that is the case, why did they make the big fuss about it? I don’t get it.
As I understand it didn’t NOGA allow some management in Old Growth and mature stands, such as thinning to enhance the stands? Am I wrong about that? Why are people presenting it as a hands-off situation? I personally believe in proper management in old-growth that is designed to enhance old-growth conditions. I also believe that is happening on many Forests already. I don’t think there are all of these Forest Plans that have Old-Growth as hands off.
Here’s what Imbergamo said about the last round in June.
“Rather than waste limited staff time and resources re-writing Forest Plans and developing old growth management approaches, the Forest Service ought to use the authorities and funding Congress has provided to focus on reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires and insect outbreaks on our public lands before it’s too late.”
https://fedforestcoalition.org/ffrc-press-statement-on-forest-service-national-old-growth-plan-amendment/
It sounds like their concern was more about needless meetings and paperwork when the processes the FS has are already good enough to protect OG (from logging, anyway, not wildfire, insects, etc.).
The other problem is that every year OG burns up. So no maps are likely to be up to date. So OG ishness and its protection needs to be decided on a current, site by site basis. As much as a national amendment might appeal to some who mistrust federal employees and their decisions, it doesn’t make any sense in the real world. At least not to me and I’m not in forest industry.
I guess I am struggling with the premise that Imbergamo was just concerned about the waste of time and resources with this project and not that trees were being taken off his menu. He is now presenting its demise as a victory but a lot of time and resources were wasted. So, is it just a partial victory? Seems a little disingenuous to me.
Maybe this was all a flawed concept. I really wondered about amending all of the Forest Plans like this. I am not confident that the processes the FS has are already good enough to protect OG. I have seen too much happen. Some of it I was involved in as a GS-9 Forester. When you are under the gun to meet targets. things happen. Big trees add up to a lot of volume much easier than a bunch of little ones.
Totally agree with Bill, though I’m sure we vote differently. Indeed, what was really the point? Probably NOGA died becuse even people we’d consider being on the “left” knew it was a waste. What was it really going to do, stop climate-change driven fires?
If I am reading this right, Sharon says “it doesn’t change the fact that the paperwork right now says that in very few places is cutting trees for commercial purposes allowed in old-growth.” So, the “OG” moniker carries a connotation of “hands off”, always has and always will! I actually would like to see a synopsis of responses to the NOGA; could it be there was an overwhelming ground swell of opposition?
As disastrous as the Biden Administration has been, it’s beyond fathom that anything coherent could come out of that camp, this late in the circus, but a true reckoning will be scarce as hens teeth!
As for PJ, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a species transition grasslands to brush lands as quick as PJ in the Southwest. Photo evidence from early settlers document that fact. We used every feasible opportunity to chip PJ and send it to the biomass plant in Snowflake. PJ as old growth? Sure, in certain Intermountain locations, but that’s a fear that one size (OG) fits all…..
I’m glad it went kaputnik….
In my experience in the Sierra Nevada, nearly every commercial thinning unit has some actual old growth in it. Litigation was minimal, because of the 30″ dbh diameter limits. In other western States, I’m sure that many of the trees would qualify as “old growth”, by some metric or another.
Isn’t it ironic that some eco-groups like to talk about “the last remaining old growth”, then turn around and file lawsuits on so many projects, claiming they are “saving old growth”.
Personally, I think we CAN grow large trees faster than ‘doing nothing’ will, in today’s modern (human-dominated) world of reality.
BLM-Wyoming Rock Springs Field Office manager Kimberlee Foster said her staffers are subjected to anti-government threats and menacing remarks some of which appeared in the Cowboy State Daily, often a mouthpiece of the far white wing of the Republican Party. Trump adherent, Harriet Hageman, Wyoming’s lone US House member is fanning the wildfire and calling for “wiping out” the deep state by targeting federal workers.
So, with help from the InterTribal Buffalo Council that started with nineteen tribes and now enjoys the membership of 83 Nations who own 25,000 American bison in 22 states, the Eastern Shoshone Nation will apply a $3 million grant to grow their herd and enhance cultural resilience. In 2023 the National Park Service rehomed 300 bison in the South Unit of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park to the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation and Standing Rock Sioux.
In April, 2024 with Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan Newland in attendance and in cooperation with Colorado State University ITBC moved five yearling bulls and five heifers with Yellowstone genetics to the Taos Pueblo. Then with ITBC efforts Grand Canyon National Park sent a hundred critters of some 380 from the North Rim to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in September.
Some Nations see the Republican nominee for Interior sympathetic to tribal sovereignty even though Donald Trump hates Indian Country.
Larry, I read the Cowboy State Daily and it’s a useful outlet.. are you criticizing their moderation policies? Not quite sure what your point is. And I’m not sure Trump “hates” Indian Country.
“in very few places is cutting trees for commercial purposes allowed in old-growth.”
I think we’ve been over this before, so remind me what “cutting trees for commercial purposes” means. If it’s ok to come up with some other purpose for removing old growth and then selling it, I suspect there’s more than “very few places.”
I think the implication here is that if a timber sale occurs in the suitable base (it meets productivity guidelines and is within a Management Area that allows for timber production), then it can count as timber volume sold (commercial purposes) and count towards that target. If you are operating a timber sale in unsuitable areas, then there needs to be another justification besides timber volume for cutting the trees, such as fuel reduction. In actuality, you can still get credit for the timber volume sold target when operating in the unsuitable areas. It happens. All of this is really just splitting hairs. At the end of the day, trees are being cut, loaded on trucks and sold in both cases.
I was talking about purpose and need.
These two replies should be related. Timber sales from suitable lands should include timber volume in the purpose and need, but in other areas should not. So we should assume old growth on suitable lands may be logged, and the same is true for old growth on unsuitable lands if there is a reason besides timber volume, which would generally be possible to come up with – unless it is prohibited. So I think the relevant question (which should have been answered by the NOGA work) is how much old growth is on lands where its removal is NOT prohibited. I suspect more than “very few.”
In a simplistic view, that might be true. However, having been a Planner (sort of 🤣) and a Decision maker (Forest Sup) it don’t work that way. First of all, the Standards and Guides of a Forest Plan help manage toward a desired future condition.
So if a Standard says retain all old growth (and most do that I’ve seen), you have to Amend the Plan to log old growth! Nah, that wouldn’t raise any concerns from the public…. The suitable vs unsuitable discussion needs to be expanded to include more of the guiding principles of that land management.
The Decision maker is not in a vacuum from the Planning process, so he/she has a pretty good idea of what’s coming – even more so at the RD level. I generally refer back to some sage advice I received as a ranger; if you want to spin your wheels on a failing premise, while laying your career on the line to do “that” (whatever “that” is), just be advised your best days are over! 🤣
Also, GIS has taken the level of sophistication of inventory – both timer as well as all resources, to a sustainable level that we know where and how much old growth there is.
Also, breakfast is ready, we have 10” of fresh snow and I got to go feed cows…..
I haven’t known many decision-makers who liked the idea of plan standards that would limit their options. When I was doing planning, there was a lot of interest in keeping the ASQ as high as possible (maybe by avoiding standards that would reflect reality), and I don’t think most forest plans prohibit logging old growth.
In the NW Forest Plan 1991 or so, the ecological goals were laid out. What was missing were the specific areas and methods to deal differently with OG in the dry areas east of the Cascades and OG in the moist areas from the Cascades west to the ocean. Jerry Franklin and friends did follow up with a thorough report in the Journal of Forestry later, but BLM and USFS did not integrate that into their analysis and methods, so the the current state of analysis of managing for an ecologically whole Forest vision remains piecemeal. Go back and rediscover what a Forest in a moist condition needs to thrive. Cutting in the already plentiful reprod. Provides plenty of timber allowing proven (periodic openings) in old growth to stimulate more variety of life and health within the stands.