Today I’d like to focus on the Washington Post story that covers the very same Emergency Situation Determination that we covered here Friday. Now remember what the ESD does-
1. One action alternative or no action is analyzed in an EA or EIS.
2. No objection process
3. Thanks to Rich J., a special injunctive relief section, which is part of the bill known as Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and IIJA.
The text of section 40807 is here:
As for “special injunctive relief standards,” section 40807(e) states:
(e) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EMERGENCY ACTIONS.—A court shall not enjoin an authorized emergency action under this section if the court determines that the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the claim of the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
This section reduces the four part test for injunctive relief used in the 9th Circuit (and perhaps others) to just one element – plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits. Masochistic readers desiring more injunction background info can go here:
*******************
Since the WaPo story, thanks to Nick Smith, I found this AP story by reporter Matt Daly which is very good IMHO.
Anyway, let’s go to the claims made in the WaPo piece (notably filed under “climate”). Let’s start with the headline.
Trump administration orders half of national forests open for logging
An emergency order removes protections covering more than half the land managed by the U.S. Forest Service as the president aims to boost timber production.
Note that this is purportedly a news story, not an op-ed.
The Trump administration has removed environmental protections covering more than half of the land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
I was curious about this and went to the FS website with acres of IRAs and Wilderness and other special areas. This is definitely a rabbit hole not of general interest, so I put that adventure at the end of the post.
Now if a person knew that there were a variety of environmental laws and regulations, one might be skeptical of the above idea. I can think of the Bush or Trump 1 folks thinking “hey we didn’t know it was that easy! Pesky old statutes and regs!”
Forest management can help prevent wildfires by thinning the amount of fuel available for blazes to feed upon. But forestry experts often suggest the removal of undergrowth that doesn’t yield timber, and they warned during similar efforts in Trump’s first term that you can’t log your way out of fire danger, The Washington Post reported. Removing large, fire-resistant trees also gives way to young trees that are more susceptible to fires.
I don’t think anyone ever said that we could “log our way out of fire danger”; what people said is that under some conditions, mechanical thinning is a useful fuel reduction tool. In some cases, there is a market for the thinned material.
Rollins’s memo, which does not make a reference to climate change, instructed Forest Service field leadership to fast-track timber production by removing National Environmental Policy Act regulations, making it easier to obtain permits and reducing “contracting burdens.”
Um…if it were that simple…
Here’s another one:
Under President Joe Biden, national forests received new protections after logging projects were banned in select areas to protect carbon-rich trees, most of which were more than 100 years old, from being cut down. Scientists say those trees play an essential role in fighting climate change, provide habitats for wildlife and are more likely to survive wildfires.
“We think this will allow us to respond effectively and strategically to the biggest threats that face old growth,” former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told The Post at the time, pointing to wildfire, disease and pests as examples. “At the end of the day, it will protect not just the forests, but also the culture and heritage connected to the forests.”
But, as we know, just as “protections” weren’t “removed” by the Secretarial Memo, neither were “protections” put in place by the Biden Administration. Forests didn’t actually receive new “protections” because the national plan amendment was never finalized. And even folks like Andy Kerr thought it wouldn’t do much anyway at the end of the day.
People I know send me this stuff and they are honestly worried. I tried to help the WaPo audience by putting a comment with a link to Friday’s post here.
As for me, the Trump Admin is doing some things I like and some things I don’t like. And with years of experience, I am pretty humble about how things will turn out. But there are enough really problematic things they are doing, like the RIFs and the purchasing card restrictions, that I don’t think the WaPo-needs to unnecessarily scare and anger people by .. well.. making stuff up. But I don’t think the reporter intentionally did that.. as I’ve said before, we have a systemic situation in which traditional outlets can’t afford specialized reporting (nor apparently fact-checking); E&E news does, but we can’t afford it; and other outlets are funded by folks with particular biases and axes to grind.
So another shout-out to reporter Matt Daly and AP for breaking that mold in this case!
*************
Down the Acreage Rabbit Hole
At least on my computer, you can click on this FS table and make it larger. I added the 44, 919 for designated areas to 58,518 IRA acres – 6015 for IRAs included in designated areas. I got .5066 or .51 of total acres that are in special areas including Wilderness, and Roadless that are seemingly off limits to commercial logging. Without going down the associated rabbit hole of acres suitable for timber production in forest plans, which is also a restriction on timber harvesting for timber purposes. It strikes me that a Sec memo that changes number of alternatives, objections and injunctions, won’t influence forests to go outside of suitable lands without a plan amendment.
So how could the Emergency Situation Determination affect greater than 50% of the acres? Maybe I calculated wrong or this FS table is wrong or outdated? Does someone have a current table like this?
In the AP article it says:
The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Combined, it is an area larger than California and amounts to 59% of Forest Service lands.
I’m writing to Matt to see what info he is using.
Link to “Since the WaPo story, thanks to Nick Smith, I found this AP story by reporter Matt Daly which is very good IMHO.” is broken.
I could not find the story on my own.
Sorry Vladimir! Here it is. https://apnews.com/article/trump-national-forests-emergency-logging-rollins-e2d7173bedcc697dee56f94ab613276f
“It strikes me that a Sec memo that changes number of alternatives, objections and injunctions, won’t influence forests to go outside of suitable lands without a plan amendment.”
There’s nothing stopping them from logging outside of suitable lands if it’s not for timber production, unless a particular forest plan says they can’t in some areas. Or am I not understanding your comment?
The “log our way out of fire danger” phrase is an interpretation of proposals to remove large trees which are not disproportionate contributors to fire risk like other vegetation is.