Old Growth

Mt. Hood (lack of) science loses in 9th Circuit

by

The way courts approach scientific controversy is a common thread on this blog.  We happen to have a perfect example from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (link to the opinion included) last week.  And it happens to involve the science of “variable density thinning” to reduce wildfire threats, another popular topic here.

The Project is the Crystal Clear Restoration Project on the Mt.  Hood National Forest.  The stated primary purpose of the Project is to reduce the risk of wildfires and promote safe fire-suppression activities.  It would use “variable density thinning” to address wildfire concerns, where selected trees of all sizes would be removed.  According to the plaintiffs, it  would encompass nearly 12,000 acres and include almost 3000 acres of logging of mature and old-growth forests along with plans to build or re-open 36 miles of roads.  The court held that an EIS was required because of scientific controversy about the effects of variable density thinning on what plaintiffs characterized as “mature, moist forest.”  The court also found that the Forest failed to show that cumulative effects would not be significant.

In both cases, the court found that the Forest “did not engage” with the information provided by the plaintiffs after, “The plaintiffs, especially Bark, got people out into the landscape and spent thousands of hours collecting information about what was going on in the land and gave that information to the Forest Service,” said attorney Brenna Bell, who spent four years on the case.  Failing to engage is a common reason for the Forest Service failing to win in court, especially when under pressure to meet “timber volume targets imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration.”

The EA stated that the Project would assertedly make the treated areas “more resilient to perturbations such as . . . largescale high-intensity fire occurrence because of the reductions in total stand density.”  Plaintiffs had provided “substantial expert opinion” that disputed that outcome.  As plaintiffs point out in their victory notice, here is how the court viewed it:

“Oregon Wild pointed out in its EA comments that “[f]uel treatments have a modest effect on fire behavior, and could even make fire worse instead of better.” It averred that removing mature trees is especially likely to have a net negative effect on fire suppression. Importantly, the organization pointed to expert studies and research reviews that support this assertion

Oregon Wild also pointed out in its EA comments that fuel reduction does not necessarily suppress fire. Indeed, it asserted that “[s]ome fuel can actually help reduce fire, such as deciduous hardwoods that act as heat sinks (under some conditions), and dense canopy fuels that keep the forest cool and moist and help suppress the growth of surface and ladder fuels . . . .” Oregon Wild cited more than ten expert sources supporting this view.”

Even the fuels report by the Forest Service acknowledged the possibility of increased fire severity. The court held (emphasis added):

“In its responses to these comments and in its finding of no significant impact, the USFS reiterated its conclusions about vegetation management but did not engage with the substantial body of research cited by Appellants. Failing to meaningfully consider contrary sources in the EA weighs against a finding that the agency met NEPA’s “hard look” requirement as to the decision not to prepare an EIS. This dispute is of substantial consequence because variable density thinning is planned in the entire Project area, and fire management is a crucial issue that has wide-ranging ecological impacts and affects human life.”

The opinion is short and worth reading as a good example of how not to approach NEPA effects analysis (i.e. “let’s make this fit into an EA instead of an EIS”).  The court cited 9th Circuit precedent for this requirement: “To demonstrate a substantial dispute, appellants must show that “evidence from numerous experts” undermines the agency’s conclusions.” The court is not choosing the science; only faulting the Forest Service for ignoring conflicting views that it found rose to a level of scientific controversy.  Under NEPA, evidence of scientific controversy requires an EIS to fully explore how the use of that science may be important to determining environmental impacts.

Tongass transition to young-growth – are we there yet?

by

The Tongass National Forest is being managed under a 2016 amendment to its 2008 forest plan that addresses the Forest’s transition away from old-growth timber harvesting.  The amendment accelerated the transition in the plan from 32 years to 16 years, but there has been continuing controversy over how long that process should take.   Here’s the latest in an extended article from E&E News:

A new complication in the debate over the young-growth transition comes from Catherine Mater, a forest products engineer from Oregon who recently completed an inventory of 43 areas within the Tongass under a contract with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station. There’s enough young growth coming online to provide around 55 million board feet of timber annually for decades, she said, or more than double the total timber volume the service reported cut there in fiscal 2018. Mater found 138,760 acres of young growth — between 55 and 80 years old — suitable for harvest. All of it was within 800 feet of Forest Service roads and away from steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Of course there’s still pushback from the “timber companies and industry-friendly politicians, who want more thinning and bigger clear cuts.”

What caught my attention though was these comments from the Tongass spokeswoman:

Forest Service managers stand by their estimates that the young-growth transition won’t be complete before 2033, Fenster said. “If, once the analysis is complete, it shows the projections in the forest plan were not valid, then the Forest Service would have to consider alternatives to incorporating new information into the forest plan estimates,” Fenster said.

The projected volume of young growth was a fundamental assumption in the 2016 amendment, so I don’t think the Forest has the option of ignoring how it could affect the decisions it made in the forest plan.

Research: eastern forest old growth more resilient to climate change

by

“Analyzing large amounts of field data from 18,500 forest plots – from Minnesota to Maine, and Manitoba to Nova Scotia – the study identifies priority regions for forest climate adaption efforts.”

A study funded by the Forest Service found that older forests in eastern North America are less vulnerable to climate change than younger forests in terms of the sensitivity of carbon storage, timber volume and species richness.  From the abstract (linked to this news release):

We found the strongest association among the investigated ESB indicators (ecosystem services and biodiversity) in old forests (>170 years). These forests simultaneously support high levels of carbon storage, timber growth, and species richness. Older forests also exhibit low climate sensitivity of associations among ESB indicators as compared to younger forests. While regions with a currently low combined ESB performance benefitted from climate change, regions with a high ESB performance were particularly vulnerable to climate change. In particular, climate sensitivity was highest east and southeast of the Great Lakes, signaling potential priority areas for adaptive management. Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at enhancing the representation of older forest conditions at landscape scales will help sustain ESB in a changing world.

Some of this sounds a little contradictory (maybe someone with more expertise and/or who reads the full article could explain), and I wonder if it has any application at all to more fire-prone forests.  But it is a different way of looking at climate change adaptation that could be incorporated into forest planning.

When should national forest old growth be logged?

by

Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest, North Carolina

 

Old growth logging projects on national forests are almost sure to generate objections, but most likely they are in an area that was “allocated” to timber production in the forest plan.  (Otherwise timber harvest would have to be for non-timber reasons, and there aren’t many of those to log old growth.)  This thoughtful article examines the issue on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest as it continues to develop its forest plan revision.

Williams and other conservationists argue that this stand of older trees and others like it are exceptional and should be conserved. The Forest Service currently says they are not sufficiently exceptional to be conserved.

If a forest plan has been revised under the 2012 Planning Rule, we would know how much old growth is needed for ecological integrity, and old growth could be logged where there is “enough” old growth on a forest based on its natural range of variation (and where not prohibited by the forest plan).  But there are only two plans completed under these requirements.  Both have desired conditions based on what they determined to be the NRV (which is not an easy thing to do because of lack of reliable historical records).  The Flathead also prohibits destruction of old growth characteristics and limits removal of old trees to certain circumstances.  The Francis Marion includes this standard:

S37. Stands meeting the criteria for old growth as defined in the Region 8 old growth Guidance will be identified during project level analyses. Consider the contribution of existing old growth communities to the future network of small and medium-sized areas of old growth conditions including the full diversity of ecosystems across the landscape.

That is similar to the current Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan:

Steverson Moffat, the National Environmental Policy Act planning team leader of the Nantahala National Forest, told CPP that the current Pisgah-Nantahala national forest land and resource management plan requires that the forest designate large, medium and small patches of old growth to form a network that represents landscapes found in the Southern Appalachians that are well dispersed and interconnected.

A big problem with this approach is that this strategic and programmatic “designation” (of a “future network”) would probably occur outside of the forest planning process and maybe out of the public eye (unless the forest plan is amended each time it occurs).  And unless a “network” has been fully described, there is no way to tell whether a particular proposed project area is necessary to comply with the forest plan.  Which leads to that debate on a project-by-project basis, like we have here on the Nantahala-Pisgah.

On a 26-acre stand near Brushy Mountain slated for harvest, the Forest Service said the site meets the minimal operational definition for old growth defined in a Forest Service document known as the Region 8 Old Growth Guide. Even so, the stand won’t be protected since it “is already well-represented and protected in existing old-growth designations.”

How were those “designations” made?  When that occurred, did the public know that it would mean these other areas would be subject to future logging, and did they have an opportunity to object then?

“Only one-half of 1 percent of the forest is old growth in the Southeast,” Buzz Williams of the Chattooga Conservancy told Carolina Public Press. “That is the reason within itself to leave it alone.”

“There is not a need to create (early successional habitat) right on top of old growth.”

The Forest Service disagreed. In an official response to the objections, the Forest Service wrote that while the Forest Service “should provide and restore old growth on the landscape,” this spot and others within the project are either not old growth or unique enough to protect.

I get that old growth should be allowed to “move” across a landscape over time, but that timeframe is even slower than the one for forest planning (note: humor).  There would be little administrative risk in designating which areas would be preserved in a forest plan and which would not (subject to amendments in cases where designated areas are destroyed by natural events).  Better yet, except on national forests that have an abundance of existing old growth (where would this be?), require an ecological reason to log old trees.

This is a debate that should be settled in forest plan revisions not passed on for objections to future projects.  An attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center agrees:

“The question of protecting old-growth forests is very much a planning-based question — in terms of the big picture of the management of the National Forest and restoring its ecological integrity,” Burnette said.

“In light of broad-based community support for protecting old growth, it’s perplexing that the (Forest Service) would want to rush out ahead of the process during a time when the question of protecting old-growth forests in the future is being considered in the revision of the forest plan.”

A big timber project gets a big lawsuit

by

(Clear-cutting in the Tongass Forest, Alaska | by musicwood)

 

Over the years, the Forest Service has dreamed of being able to do “big gulp” projects, or in contemporary terms, “landscape scale” projects. These essentially amount to doing one EIS for a large area and a long time period before the actual locations and treatments have been determined. There are many of these in progress now across the country, and the approach is being tested (again) in court in Alaska on the Tongass National Forest. This Earthjustice news release includes a link to the complaint (filed May 7), which includes the following:

The Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project (the Project) in the Tongass National Forest includes extensive old-growth and second-growth logging. The project area is roughly 2.3 million acres. The project area contains about 1.8 million acres of national forest land. The Project authorizes logging of up to 656 million board feet (mmbf) of timber. The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) estimates that this logging would occur on over 42,000 acres. The Forest Service estimates about 164 miles of roads associated with the logging would be constructed as part of the Project. The Record of Decision authorizes implementation of the Project to take place over a span of fifteen years.

The Forest Service has authorized this Project using an approach that has been soundly rejected by the courts. The agency authorized the Project before identifying specific locations for logging or road construction. As a result, the FEIS does not adequately describe the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of the Project on the human environment or on subsistence uses.

In the 1980’s, the Forest Service lost at least two court decisions for failure to provide adequate site-specific information and analysis in the environmental impact statements (EISs) for Tongass timber sales. City of Tenakee Springs v. Block, 778 F.2d 1402 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Tenakee Springs v. Courtright, No. J86-024-CIV, 1987 WL 90272 (D. Alaska June 26, 1987). In subsequent Tongass timber sale EISs, the Forest Service began including comprehensive, detailed quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the logging and road access plans for each harvest unit proposed for sale. When it did so, the courts upheld the adequacy of the site-specific information. Stein v. Barton, 740 F. Supp. 743, 748-49 (D. Alaska 1990).

The FEIS’s Response to Comments states that “it is not possible to determine all of the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wildlife habitat or connectivity that could result from this project before implementation.” Implementation of a particular part of the project has begun, apparently with no project-specific NEPA planned to determine those effects. Plaintiffs necessarily are challenging the entire project decision for violation of NEPA (and ANILCA) procedures.

There is a related NFMA issue that results from the Tongass forest plan imposing data requirements on projects that are hard to meet at this large scale, making the project inconsistent with the forest plan.  While this involves specific language in the Tongass plan, all forest plans explicitly or implicitly require certain analysis prior to projects.  The bigger the area, the harder that is to do.  And the trend of recent plan revision documents is to put off decisions about things like ecological integrity until project planning.  If successful, this could create an imposing analytical burden for large-scale projects like this one.

They are still going to have to do a site-specific NEPA analysis somewhere. The end result of all this may be that the Forest Service will create another level of planning and NEPA for “timber programs.” Just like the old days, except now added to the existing current plan and project level processes.

Disagreement About Fuel Treatment: Exhibit A?

by

Still More Agreement About Fuel Treatment: Conservation Colorado and former Secretary Zinke

Sharon said:

That’s why I’m thinking that finding some projects that entail:
1. FS clearcutting in California
2. Fuel treatments in backcountry
3. Fuel treatments taking out big fire-resilient (living?) trees

Would help us understand exactly what the issues are.

I think this project might be a good place to start:

Destructive wildfires along the California-Oregon border in recent years has the U.S. Forest Service pursuing projects to clear forests of burnt debris and trees that could feed future fires. One of those projects included selling the rights to log old-growth trees in Northern California, until a federal judge halted the timber sale on Friday.

Environmental groups asked a federal court to halt the Seaid-Horse timber sale in the Klamath National Forest. They say it would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by clear-cutting protected old-growth trees and harming Coho salmon.

Its purpose is: “Reduce safety hazards along roads & in concentrated stands, reduce fuels adjacent to private property, & to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire losses of late successional habitat.”

So it’s got California, clearcutting, fuel treatment and big trees.  It’s also got wildlife issues, which is the other point of disagreement I suggested.  Maybe not back-country, but certainly not front-country – mid-country? 

It even comes with a spokesperson who is probably familiar with our questions:

Western Environmental Law Group attorney Susan Jane Brown says old-growth trees in Northern California provide a habitat for threatened species such as the northern spotted owl. They’re also the most resilient in enduring wildfires.

“We could agree that cutting small trees is a good thing to reduce fire risk, but when it comes to cutting very large, very old trees, that’s an entirely different matter,” Brown said.

 

 

Sierra Club Comments

by

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.

 

“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.

 

“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.

 

“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.

 

“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.

 

“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.

 

“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.

 

“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?

 

“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.

 

“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!

 

“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.

 

“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!

 

“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”

I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*

 

“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!

 

“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!

 

“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.

 

“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??

 

“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.

 

“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!

 

“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.

 

“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!

 

“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.

 

 

Oregon logging history map

by

Oregon Wild has compiled an  interactive map of logged and thinned areas on public and private lands across the state of Oregon.  If nothing else, it’s hard to look at this and accuse anyone wanting to keep logging out of new parts of their public lands of being an “extremist.”

Oregon Wild intends to use this mapping tool to help advocate for forest conservation and demonstrate that while there have been temporal pulses of increased logging intensity over the years, logging is always very active on both public and private forests in Oregon. In fact, if anything, the analysis on this site underrepresents the true extent of logging taking place.

The tool is also a great visualization of the few Wilderness and roadless wild lands remaining in the state – while it does not highlight these areas, they are clearly visible by their noticeable lack of logging units. These last bastions of wild landscapes are far too rare in Oregon, a reason Oregon Wild is working to protect what is left.

We can also use the tool to push back on misinformation spouted by timber interests.

  • Many say that logging on public land was “shut-down” by the spotted owl and Northwest Forest Plan, first implemented in 1994, but the data shows that logging continued apace throughout the Northwest Forest Plan region after the plan was adopted.
  • Logging advocates also say we need the increase the “pace and scale” of logging to reduce fire hazard in the dry forests of eastern and southwest Oregon, but the data show that thinning has already occurred across vast portions of these forests.

A Picture is Worth at Least 1000 Words

by

“Natural Forest Regeneration”? (in the Eldorado National Forest.)

Coastal pine marten proposed for listing as a threatened species

by

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the coastal (Humboldt) marten, found in older forests in California and Oregon, as a threatened species.

“Martens are vulnerable to predation and increased competition in habitats that have been subject to either high–moderate severity fires or intensive logging in the last 40 years because both of these events remove the structural characteristics of the landscape that provide escape cover and are important to marten viability (canopy cover, shrub cover, etc.). These older forests have declined substantially from historical amounts…”

As a threatened species, the prohibitions in ESA against incidental take (§9) would not apply, but the FWS usually applies them using a special §4(d) regulation, which it is doing here. As is also common, they carve out exceptions to the prohibitions where take of the marten would be allowed; two of which would be relevant to national forest management:

(1) Forestry management activities for the purposes of reducing the risk or severity of wildfire, such as fuels reduction projects, fire breaks, and wildfire firefighting activities.

(3) Forestry management activities consistent with the conservation needs of the coastal marten. These include activities consistent with formal approved conservation plans or strategies, such as Federal or State plans and documents that include coastal marten conservation prescriptions or compliance, and for which the Service has determined that meeting such plans or strategies, or portions thereof, would be consistent with this proposed rule.

Here is the rationale:

“Although these management activities may result in some minimal level of harm or temporary disturbance to the coastal marten, overall, these activities benefit the subspecies by contributing to conservation and recovery. With adherence to the limitations described in the preceding paragraphs, these activities will have a net beneficial effect on the species by encouraging active forest management that creates and maintains the complex tree and shrub conditions needed to support the persistence of marten populations, which is essential to the species’ long-term viability and conservation.”

What this means is that forestry management activities that are not for the purpose of limiting fire or not consistent with the species’ needs would violate ESA if they harm any martens (unless they obtain an incidental take permit).

Regarding (1), I would ask whether all it takes to comply is for a project to say that it is for this purpose, or considering some of the discussions on this blog, does there have to be scientific support for the idea that a particular practice would actually have the intended effect.

Regarding (3), there is obviously a role for forest plans to include coastal marten conservation prescriptions. Presumably, plan components to create and maintain complex tree and shrub conditions for martens would be consistent with the NFMA requirement to provide ecological integrity and conditions needed for viability of at-risk species. What I haven’t seen before is a process by which the FWS reviews a forest plan for consistency with §4(d) criteria for a threatened species.

There could be future challenges to projects for violation of §9 because they do not meet these criteria.  The Center for Biological Diversity believes that “industrial logging” could meet these criteria and continue to occur in marten habitat.  At least (1) seems like it could be an exception that swallows the rule.  If it were dropped for fuel reduction projects, they could still occur if consistent with marten conservation under (3).