Here We Go Again: The Mature and Old Growth Federal Register Notice, Public Comment and Webinar

It’s Friday again and time to talk about MOG (mature and old growth forests) while thinking about white oak for casks.

Here are the questions in the FS/BLM comment request, you can find the Federal Register Notice here.

Input Requested. The USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, DOI, are seeking input on the development of a definition for old-growth and mature forests on Federal
land, and are specifically requesting input on the following questions:

• What criteria are needed for a universal definition framework that motivates mature and old-growth forest conservation and can be used for planning and adaptive management?

• What are the overarching old-growth and mature forest characteristics that belong in a definition framework?

• How can a definition reflect changes based on disturbance and variation in forest type/composition, climate, site productivity and geographic region?

• How can a definition be durable but also accommodate and reflect changes in climate and forest composition?

• What, if any, forest characteristics should a definition exclude?
Additional information about this effort, including a link to the recorded webinar, can be found at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/old-growth-forests

***********************

During our discussions of specific projects, what I found interesting about the “Mature and Old Growth” or MOG for short effort, is that in 2012 the Forest Service decided that it would manage for NRV (yes, subject to all kinds of wordy parameters, this hasn’t found its way to court yet and may not), so Forests spent all kinds of effort to analyze what NRV might look like (as I called the 2001 Planning Rule, a “full employment program for historic vegetation ecologists.”) To a greater or lesser extent informed by what Native Americans may have done with fire during various time periods. Nevertheless, here we are with forests trying to manage forest for NRV (and various wildlife species) and some projects designed for those purposes have come under attack for cutting “mature” trees. Was NRV just a analysis dead end, if the target is now “mature forest conservation”? Could everyone have just skipped that side trip? Is biodiversity for species (say oaks or western white pine, not to speak of wildlife) that require openings (and previously depended on fire) now less important than “mature forest conservation”?

Here’s my take. Certain ENGO’s have never supported cutting of trees (“logging”) for philosophical reasons. For a while, species (such as spotted owl) were a good horse to ride in pursuit of that goal. Now they are riding the “carbon” horse. However, the carbon horse has issues.

For example, as we have pointed out, old trees die. Even “mature” trees, due to bugs, fire, etc. Many people, including me, have said this. There’s even now a scientific study that says “trees may burn up or die in California and that wouldn’t be good for carbon.” I’d put my carbon money on direct air capture technologies, or if it had to be trees, then reforestation for carbon as well as meeting other objectives.

Perhaps trees and forests are going to die from climate change, so there’s that also. Climate change (may be) killing trees and forests. At least that’s the tenor of this WaPo story today. “oldest trees may not survive climate change”. Of course, these particular trees are also in one of the toughest areas for trees to start with. Time for a field trip to your local bristlecones. But if we think climate change will kill our current forests, maybe that’s not the best carbon bet.

I’m sure given all the smart people in the Forest Service, they will figure something out that makes sense. What will be more interesting is how the politics will play out across USDA, which tends to have a rather common-sensical perspective, versus the more political DOI -perhaps more beholden to the key ENGO’s, and perhaps more closely monitored by the climate folks in the White House. And the question of what an Executive Order can do vs. MUSYA and even the Planning Rule. And, of course, the timeframe for analysis, and rulemaking (?) and .. elections. Should be interesting to watch!

***********
I wrote a song parody about the Old Growth issue for the Old Growth person’s (can’t remember his name) retirement party sometime in the 90s.. I think it was an issue in HFRA. It was to the tune of “Maria” from Paint Your Wagon.

Way out West we’ve got a place
With big and fat and old trees
We’ll draw a line around the place so they won’t become..sold trees.

Reserves.. Reserves.. we call those areas.. reserves.

But old trees die and then fall down
And we’ve got premonitions
But we’ll do fine, we’ll move the lines, or change the definitions.
***********

If anyone’s interested in the history of old growth analysis in the 90’s, you can google “old growth forest service 1990” and find some regional documents.

Santa Fe County Commission resolution about Santa Fe National Forest fuel treatment projects

A reader of The Smokey Wire wrote me the other day to point out that the Santa Fe, New Mexico County Commission unanimously passed the resolution below concerning the Santa Fe Mountains Project and fuels treatment projects in the Santa Fe National Forest in general.

According to TSW reader, in addition to urging the completion of an EIS for the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project, the resolution recommends the utilization of a broad range of current science into project planning and analysis, and to consider alternatives to the current project plan.

For more information, folks may want to check out this article in Wildfire Today titled “County Commissioners urge USFS to conduct EIS on 50,000-acre fuel treatment project in New Mexico.”

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – _______

Introduced by:
Commissioner Anna Hansen and Commissioner Anna T. Hamilton

A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE (USFS) TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ON THE SANTA FE MOUNTAINS LANDSCAPE RESILIENCY PROJECT; TO REQUEST NEW RISK, COSTS, AND BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF USFS FOREST FUELS TREATMENTS ON THE SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST INCLUDING THEIR RISK TO NEW MEXICO HEALTH, WATER SUPPLIES AND ECONOMIES; TO PUBLICLY ASSESS USE OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS UNDER ACCELERATING CLIMATE CHANGE; AND TO REQUEST THAT THE USFS CEASE INTENTIONAL BURNS IN SANTA FE COUNTY UNTIL THESE PUBLIC REVIEWS

WHEREAS, the Santa Fe National Forest (SFNF), United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), issued a draft Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on analysis in an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project (SFMLRP) to conduct extensive ground disturbing activities in forests east of Santa Fe in March 2022; and

WHEREAS, The DN and FONSI for the Project selected Alternative 2 which calls for cutting and intentional burning of vegetation on 38,680 acres across a 50,566-acre project area over the next 10 to 15 years (all areas would be treated multiple times); and

WHEREAS, this area and the entire SFNF provide recreation and outdoor enjoyment to more than 100,000 Santa Fe County residents and thousands of visitors each year and is home to the Santa Fe Ski Basin, Hyde Memorial State Park, portions of the Pecos Wilderness and Tesuque and Nambe Pueblos, extensive inventoried roadless areas and high value habitat for breeding birds and other wildlife; and

WHEREAS, the Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners (Board)
passed Resolution No. 2019-53, on April 4, 2019, encouraging the USFS to conduct a comprehensive and objective analysis for the SFMLRP; provide effective notice to the public including presentations in downtown Santa Fe, NM; and incorporate a broad range of forest and fire ecology research before taking any action; and

WHEREAS, the Board passed Resolution No. 2010-110 on June 29, 2010, in support of Wilderness designation for Inventoried Roadless Areas adjacent to the Pecos Wilderness that will be impacted by the SFMLRP and other SFNF projects; and

page1image3339747824

WHEREAS, National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), often described as the United States Magna Carta for the environment, helps public officials make decisions based on comprehensively understanding environmental consequences before actions are taken and mandating, to the fullest extent possible, citizen involvement in such decisions; and

WHEREAS, NEPA requires analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the SFMLRP on a variety of resources, including the risks of intentional burning on national forest lands bordering private property and impacts to air quality and public health, threatened and endangered species, inventoried roadless areas, water quality, soils, vegetation and wildlife; and

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the Chief of the USFS (Chief) called for a review of the Hermit’s Peak Fire (Chief’s Review) which was a consequence of the escaped Las Dispensas intentional burn on the Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District of the Santa Fe National Forest; and

WHEREAS, the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire has destroyed at least 400 homes, forced up to 18,000 people to evacuate their properties, cost more than $248 million in firefighting expenses and burned more than 341,000 acres; and

WHEREAS, the Chief’s Review found that megadrought and climate disruption are presenting unforeseen challenges to the planning and executing of intentional burns; and

WHEREAS, USFS will undertake thousands of acres of intentional burns per year similarly endangering Santa Fe County this fall, adjacent to densely populated areas, without substantive changes to their (flawed) methods, use of personnel, or strategy for climate change; and

WHEREAS, neither the Chief’s Review, nor other communications, analysis, or strategies by the USFS on the SFNF, specifically re-evaluates the viability of SFNF projects and plan of forest treatments given extreme drought and accelerating climate change; and

WHEREAS, the growth of grasses and other fine fuels following fuel reduction activities, together with debris generated by fireline construction, contributes to increased fire risk; and

WHEREAS, unacceptable risks are taken by personnel conducting planned burns because they are pressured to “accomplish the mission”; and

WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate because the EA for the SFMLRP did not disclose or analyze the significant impacts to resources of an escaped intentional burn resulting from global heating and increased fine fuels produced by management and bureaucratic pressure to meet targets; and

WHEREAS, the risks and impacts of escaped intentional burns were not identified in the EA for the SFMLRP or other SFNF projects, although the issue was raised in public comments.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County hereby:

  1. Encourages the USFS to prepare a comprehensive EIS for the SFMLRP that would in every respect engage the public, respond to a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts, examine alternatives, including preserving forests in their natural condition, and document unavoidable adverse effects prior to commencing any action.
  2. Urges the USFS to investigate tactical and strategic alternatives to large-scale fuel reductions, both to restore the forest and to address wildfire risk, including costs and benefits of all current treatments and alternatives. Specifically, we request that additional experts in regenerative agroforestry, indigenous and historical approaches be consulted, with public access to presentations, and that additional science and community approaches be sought through public meetings.
  3. Requests that the USFS use an EIS or additional tools, agencies, or monies to investigate, analyze and disclose to the public, the risks of an escaped intentional burn, specifically under pervasive conditions of drought and climate-change, in comparison to the risk of alternative approaches and plans.
  4. Requests that the USFS re-evaluate the recent scientific literature on combined fire/heating/climate change impacts on high-altitude forests in their risk calculations for intentional burning, including critical parameters that now best predict forest mortality and regeneration failure, such as vapor pressure deficit, soil dryness, and maximum soil temperature, and implement new required metrics on both forest condition and in assessing conditions for intentional burning.
  5. Requests the USFS use an EIS and additional tools to assess the impacts of USFS forest fuels’ treatments on the ecosystems comprising the SFNF, including future catastrophic loss of tree regeneration and ecosystem integrity, and the risk of those treatments to New Mexico citizens, water supplies, and economies.
  6. Requests the USFS cease all prescribed burns on the SFMLRP area until the greater understanding and concomitant risk reduction provided by these reviews is in place.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County requests that the County Manager forward this Resolution to the United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development Xochitl Torres Small, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management Director, the U.S. Forest Service National Director, New Mexico’s Senators and Representatives in Congress, the New Mexico Governor, and State Senators and Representatives in the New Mexico Legislature representing Santa Fe County and Counties in the Sangre de Cristo Mountain Range (The Santa Fe National Forest).

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022.

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY

By: ___________________________ Anna T. Hamilton, Chair

NFS Litigation Weekly July 08, 2022

The Forest Service summaries are here:  Litigation Weekly July 08 2022 Email

Individual links are to court documents.

Court decision in Friends of the Clearwater v. Probert (D. Idaho)

On June 24, the district court reversed, remanded and enjoined the End of the World and Hungry Ridge Projects on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest.  An EIS (instead of an EA) will be required for the End of the World Project and both projects failed to employ the forest plan’s definition of old growth or to properly analyze the cumulative effects on old growth.  We discussed that here.  The court did uphold other effects analysis, and the “no effect” determination for grizzly bears under ESA because they were not considered “occupied” by the species, even though bears may be present.

Court decision in Romey v. United States (D. Alaska)

On June 27, the district court granted the Forest Service motion to dismiss this case regarding a special use permit for the Wolf Creek Boatworks on the Tongass National Forest. The court determined that the plaintiffs lack standing because a land exchange had already taken place.

New case:  International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D. Ariz.)

On June 28, 2022, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violation of NEPA (improper use of a categorical exclusion), the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, and the APA, following a March 21, 2022, notice of a planned capturing and removal of up to 20 feral horses on the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest.

New case:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service (D. Mont.)

On June 30, CBD, the Yaak Valley Resource Council and WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint against the Black Ram Project on the Kootenai National Forest.  It alleges NEPA violations related to grizzly bears and climate change and failure to prepare an EIS, and failure to comply with forest plan requirements for wild and scenic rivers and old growth.  We discussed that here.  Plaintiffs also notified the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service of their intent to sue regarding effects on grizzly bears.

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland and State of California v. Haaland (N.D. Cal.)

On July 5, the district court vacated the 2019 Endangered Species Act rules promulgated by the Trump Administration.  The Blanket Rule Repeal, 84 Fed. Reg. 44,753, eliminated the FWS’s former policy of automatically extending to threatened species the protections against “take” that Section 9 automatically affords to endangered species. And the Interagency Consultation Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. 44,976, changed how the Services work with federal agencies to prevent proposed agency actions that could harm listed species or their critical habitat.

BLOGGER’S BONUS

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service published a final rule rescinding the Trump administration’s 2020 final rule defining “habitat” for the purpose of informing designation of areas as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act.  We previously discussed this here.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services has agreed to settle a lawsuit by completing an extensive environmental study on its methods of predator control in Idaho, and also agreed not to use poison gas cartridges or fire to kill wolf pups in dens in Idaho until the study is finished at the end of 2024.  This extends an existing suspension of predator control in wilderness and other areas to species other than wolves, and precludes Wildlife Services from killing predators to bolster deer and elk populations, pending the environmental analysis.  The Forest Service and BLM were also defendants in this case.

On June 28, the district court found that the proposed logging of the Benson Ridge parcel (a private parcel of land Defendants purchased from the State of Oregon, formerly part of the Elliott State Forest) would harm and harass threatened marbled murrelets, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act prohibition against incidental take of listed species in the absence of a permit from the listing agency. The court’s ruling permanently enjoins logging of the occupied murrelet habitat.  The news release has a link to the opinion.  (This is the case referred to in Bob Zybach’s comments about attorney fees here.)  In response to a 2016 lawsuit, the Oregon Board of Forestry is in the process of developing rules to protect murrelet sites on state and private timber lands, which could lead to a permit for incidental take.

What Do We Think About: Senator Bennet’s GORP/Federal Land Allocation/Planning Legislative Proposal?

 

This is a proposal that seems to do land management planning for BLM and FS jointly in the Gunnison area.  According to the website Bennet started effort this in 2012 (he was elected in 2010).  It seems to have all the usual (local) suspects involved.  And right now, this legislative proposal is even open for public comment! But no NEPA of course, and perhaps not much discussion of how entities outside of the area should influence federal lands.   This reminds me of a Mark Rey quote about how deciding on designations is politically above the pay grade of a Forest Supe.  It definitely changes the political landscape of decisions, and perhaps relieves the FS and BLM of the rigors of (and overanalysis, NRV-ing,  and bullet-proofing) planning and EIS’s.   Because isn’t the ultimate question, beyond all the high falutin’ verbiage, “who can do what. where?”  Leaving the “how” perhaps to another day.  And in legislation, if passed, it would stick.. or at least be an interesting convo and/or object of horse-trading in Congress. On the website you can find the readers’ guide, FAQ’s, the proposal and maps.

The only thing I would add is a public posting of all comments, so that folks like me might be able to write about what concerns people have. But maybe that’s there somewhere.

What do you think?

 

 

Region 5 asks for (and gets) NEPA “emergency” exemption

After fires in 2020 and 2021, the Forest Service’s California region bit off more than it could chew when it proposed to log “hazard” (sic) trees along 5,800 miles of forest roads. Now the regional office has asked the Chief for an emergency exemption from NEPA review for 167 miles of its roadside logging. Why? “Because “project planning and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation is taking longer than anticipated.” The Chief granted the exemption yesterday.

Who could have known that the Forest Service’s largest logging project in its history might take “longer than anticipated?”

PS: The FS claims these fire-affected trees are “hazardous” because “within the last 10 years, the Forest Service has documented 69 claims against the government of property damage, 11 injuries, and four fatalities in the western regions associated with falling trees/limbs.” There’s no evidence that these damage claims are associated with fire-affected or dead trees. Most tree-related injuries result from live, green trees falling. That’s because most trees that fall are live and green when they keel over.

A case for retreat in the age of fire

An essay from The Conversation, “A case for retreat in the age of fire.”

“It has been nearly four years since the Camp Fire, but the population of Paradise is now less than 30% of what it once was. This makes Paradise one of the first documented cases of voluntary retreat in the face of wildfire risk. And while the notion of wildfire retreat is controversial, politically fraught and not yet endorsed by the general public, as experts in urban planning and environmental design, we believe the necessity for retreat will become increasingly unavoidable.”

Let’s Discuss: The Black Ram Project on the Kootenai

The objections to Black Ram.

Matthew posted a press release today from a coalition of these outfits, and this was part of it:

In northwest Montana, the U.S. Forest Service’s Black Ram project will allow nearly 4,000 acres of the Kootenai National Forest to be commercially logged, including clearcutting more than 1,700 acres and logging hundreds of acres of centuries-old trees. These rare, old forests are champions of carbon storage, which reduces harms from climate change. Conservation groups sued to challenge the logging and road building project on June 30, 2022.

“The U.S. Forest Service is racing to eradicate ancient primary forests on our public lands in direct opposition to President Biden’s proclamation to protect old and mature forests as an effective means of battling climate change” said Rick Bass, chair of the Yaak Valley Forest Council. “Primary old forests in the proposed Black Ram project on the Kootenai National Forest can store up to 1,900 metric tons of biomass per hectare. The Forest Service is committing climate treason in broad daylight, racing to cut the last old forests in the backcountry—logging in the wet swamps, the one place fire doesn’t go. It’s climate madness disguised as greed.”

“This report demonstrates that logging remains a critical threat to mature and old-growth forests,” said Adam Rissien, ReWilding Manager with WildEarth Guardians. “The urgent need for meaningful protections could not be more evident and until then we will continue to challenge the Forest Service when the agency seeks to decimate habitat important for imperiled species such as grizzly bears and Canada lynx.”

Here’s the Forest’s side of the story (from a document press release on final DN):

Black Ram is a science-based restoration project located northwest of Troy, Mont. The project is designed to move the landscape toward desired conditions described in the 2015 Forest Plan, including the persistence of old growth and mature trees on the landscape. The project uses ecologically-based treatments, informed by indigenous traditional ecological knowledge to improve forest health and resiliency to fire, insects and disease, and climate change, and to recruit and maintain old growth on the Forest, which is the traditional homelands of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.The environmental review analyzed over 95,000 acres of the approximately 2.2 million acre forest. Thirty-seven percent of the project area is within the Wildland Urban Interface. Project activities include timber harvest, mechanical and hand thinning for fuels reduction, wildlife and aquatic habitat improvement, prescribed burning, stream restoration and trail and recreation improvements. Less than four percent of the project area will have timber harvest, including to restore over 2,000 acres of western white pine including through reforestation with blister rust resistant stock. No harvest will occur until calendar year 2023 and only after additional core habitat is secured for grizzly bears.

All treatments within designated old growth areas are designed to maintain and improve old growth characteristics on the landscape, and ensure it persists into the future per the requirements in the Forest Plan. No harvest of old growth is planned under the project, except if needed for public safety or to address insect or disease hazard. Project goals include retaining the largest and healthiest trees to restore and grow resilient stands for the future. Grizzly bear protections will be implemented as well and the project will improve the production of huckleberries, which are a primary food source for bears.The project is the result of extensive public involvement and government to government consultation with Tribes. The Black Ram Project is in Ktunaxa Territory and the project area is critical to the culture and religion of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and greater Ktunaxa Nation. “The Tribe supports the Black Ram project, because it protects our Ktunaxa resources, furthers restoration of Ktunaxa Territory forests and was developed through our government-to-government relationship with the United States Forest Service,” said Gary Aitken, Jr., Vice-Chairman, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

As we’ve discussed before, Bass is a great writer in terms of painting a picture with words. But it boils down to:

-clearcutting
-cut old growth forests
-logging in swamps
-logging hundreds of acres of “century old” trees.. (not old growth).

The Kootenai Forest says “no harvest of old growth except for public safety or to address insect or disease hazard.”
I didn’t see anything about “swamps” but how wet the soils are would be in the EA presumably.
Also, the Kootenai Tribe supports the project.

****************
But the concern in the Carbon Forest press release was mostly about carbon and old-growth. So the questions remain and we can dig into them.

Do the KF and RB agree on the definition of “old growth”?
Do the KF and RB agree on the definition of “clearcut”?

If the KF says “no harvest of old growth” except for “public safety or to address insect or disease hazards”, would RB say that that is an accurate characterization?
If not, why not? Where and why do these sources disagree about this project specifically?
Can we get down to the silvicultural prescriptions at issue?

We actually have dug down to this level previously on a project in NW California, and at the end of the day, I think it really helped our mutual understanding.

***************
What I thought was interesting about the objections was how few there were, given the media attention to this specific project. It seems like the objectors are fairly common to any tree cutting projects in Region 1. So why the unusual amount of interest?
Here’s a link to the issue response letter. It’s full of links to where explanations are given in the EA. I think you can get a good idea of what it’s like to work on these projects by reading the objections, the response and following the links to the analyses in the responses.

Conservation groups sue Forest Service for evading analysis and disclosure of commercial thinning projects’ environmental impacts

There have been plenty of discussions and debates about the U.S. Forest Service’s use of categorical exclusions—an agency regulation exempting certain projects from the usual NEPA public disclosure and appeal requirements—on this blog since its inception. Therefore this press release about a new legal challenge may be of interest to folks. -mk

MEDFORD, OREGON—Today, conservation organizations WildEarth Guardians and Oregon Wild filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s misuse of an agency regulation to evade its obligation to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of three projects on the Fremont-Winema National Forest in southcentral Oregon. The organizations allege the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to analyze the impacts of commercial thinning across thousands of acres of national forest as part of the South Warner, Bear Wallow, and Baby Bear logging projects. The organizations are represented by Crag Law Center.

To duck its obligation to analyze the impacts of the projects’ extensive commercial logging, the Forest Service relied on a categorical exclusion—an agency regulation exempting certain projects from the usual NEPA public disclosure and appeal requirements. CEs are reserved for small, low-impact, routine activities like replacing a culvert or rebuilding a section of trail. Here, the Forest Service relied on CE-6, a categorical exclusion for “timber stand and wildlife habitat improvement” activities, such as thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard, and prescribed burning. Though the agency adopted CE-6 in 1992, until 2018 it had never used the categorical exclusion to bypass environmental analyses for projects that included commercial logging.

“The Forest Service is misleading the public as to what these projects entail. Commercial thinning is logging—trees with marketable value are cut and removed from the forest to be sold on the market—which requires heavy equipment and roads that can disturb soils, cause erosion into streams, destroy or degrade habitat, and release stored carbon,” said Chris Krupp of WildEarth Guardians. “Over the past few years the Forest Service has taken to re-labeling logging projects as timber stand or habitat improvement projects with a commercial thinning component, in order to avoid having to analyze, and inform the public about, the impacts of public lands logging that the law requires.”

The three projects being challenged indicate the agency’s intention to increasingly rely on CE-6, regardless of the scale and scope of commercial thinning employed. The South Warner project authorizes 16,000 acres of commercial thinning (25 square miles), Bear Wallow 10,000 acres (15+ square miles), and Baby Bear 3,000 acres (4+ square miles).

”Logging our National Forests has complex effects on the environment, and should be carefully planned. For 50 years Congress has required federal agencies to disclose environmental impacts and involve the public in decision-making that affects the environment. The Forest Service cannot unilaterally carve out a giant loophole to avoid this important public process.” said Doug Heiken of Oregon Wild.

The lawsuit further alleges the Forest Service has never determined that commercial thinning—much less commercial thinning of the scale and scope authorized by the three projects here—does not cause significant environmental impacts. Such a determination is necessary if projects that include commercial thinning are to be categorically excluded from NEPA’s mandate to disclose the environmental impacts of an agency proposal through either an assessment or more comprehensive impact statement.

“Categorical exclusions basically represent a bargain between the Forest Service and the public,” said Oliver Stiefel of Crag Law Center. “Before adopting a new CE, the Forest Service must prove that the environmental impacts of a set of activities will be insignificant. In exchange, when the Forest Service later proposes a project that fits within the CE, it may dispense with the detailed analysis and disclosure of environmental impacts otherwise required. The Forest Service here hasn’t lived up to its end of the bargain—relying on a CE for 29,000 acres of logging is unprecedented.”

A copy of the complaint is available here: https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/CE6-Oregon-Complaint.pdf

More Mortality in the Sierra Nevada

Excerpts from “Why have all the trees been dying?” in a Lake Tahoe area paper [emphasis added]. I think this mortality will spread north in to the Cascades in Oregon and Washington.

Jonathan Cook-Fisher, District Ranger for the Tahoe National Forest in Truckee said, “It is happening from the west shore to the north. The fir trees are the first to go. There are some beetles, but the primary driver appears to be overstocked forest stands with drought conditions.”

Overstocked forests didn’t just happen in the last few years. It has been a growing (sorry couldn’t resist) problem for the past 100 years. Sierra Nevada forests (and forests throughout the west) have adapted to regular fires that were spurred by lightning storms. Trees adapted by growing rapidly and close together in an attempt to “out-grow” the fires. The lightning caused fires stayed low to the ground, burned out the brush and those swiftly growing young firs before the stands could get too thick, leaving a forest of primarily mature, bigger trees spread out around the forest. Fewer, large trees were better able to fend off pests and drought. 

In a scientific study in the Journal of Ecological Applications [2021] on the impact of tree mortality on wildfire severity entitled “Recent bark beetle outbreaks influence wildfire severity in mixed-confer forests of the Sierra Nevada,” Rebecca Wayman and Hugh Safford found: 

“Our analyses identified prefire tree mortality as influential on all measures of wildfire severity… All measures of fire severity increased as prefire mortality increased…Managers of historically frequent-fire forests will benefit from utilizing this information when prioritizing fuels reduction treatments in areas of recent tree mortality, as it is the first empirical study to document a relationship between prefire mortality and subsequent wildfire severity in these systems.”

Report: Federal logging projects put 10 climate-saving forests on chopping block

Old multistory forest slated for phased clearcut within logging unit 72 of the Black Ram timber sale on the Kootenai National Forest in Montana. Photo by Yaak Valley Forest Council.

 

Report: Federal logging projects put 10 climate-saving forests on chopping block

Trees in Kootenai National Forest included on list of 10 threatened forests that help fight climate change

MISSOULA, MONTANA—Federal agencies are targeting mature and old-growth forests for logging despite these trees’ extraordinary ability to curb climate change and President Biden’s directive to preserve them, according to a new report spotlighting the 10 worst logging projects in federal forests across the country.

In the report released today, Worth More Standing, the Climate Forests coalition details federal logging proposals targeting nearly a quarter of a million acres of old-growth and mature forests overseen by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The report outlines “a pervasive pattern of federal forest mismanagement that routinely sidesteps science to turn carbon-storing giants into lumber” and calls on the Biden administration to pass a permanent rule to protect these big old trees.

“The best way to protect these carbon-storing giants is to let them grow, but our federal agencies keep turning them into lumber,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Biden administration can help curb climate change by permanently protecting mature and old growth trees. It takes centuries to make up for the carbon lost when these trees are chopped down and we don’t have that kind of time.”

The threatened forests are in Montana, North Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Oregon.

In northwest Montana, the U.S. Forest Service’s Black Ram project will allow nearly 4,000 acres of the Kootenai National Forest to be commercially logged, including clearcutting more than 1,700 acres and logging hundreds of acres of centuries-old trees. These rare, old forests are champions of carbon storage, which reduces harms from climate change. Conservation groups sued to challenge the logging and road building project on June 30, 2022.

“The U.S. Forest Service is racing to eradicate ancient primary forests on our public lands in direct opposition to President Biden’s proclamation to protect old and mature forests as an effective means of battling climate change” said Rick Bass, chair of the Yaak Valley Forest Council. “Primary old forests in the proposed Black Ram project on the Kootenai National Forest can store up to 1,900 metric tons of biomass per hectare. The Forest Service is committing climate treason in broad daylight, racing to cut the last old forests in the backcountry—logging in the wet swamps, the one place fire doesn’t go. It’s climate madness disguised as greed.”

“This report demonstrates that logging remains a critical threat to mature and old-growth forests,” said Adam Rissien, ReWilding Manager with WildEarth Guardians. “The urgent need for meaningful protections could not be more evident and until then we will continue to challenge the Forest Service when the agency seeks to decimate habitat important for imperiled species such as grizzly bears and Canada lynx.”

Mature and old-growth forests hold enormous amounts of carbon. Preserving old-growth and mature forests is a meaningful, cost-effective measure the Biden administration can take immediately to mitigate climate change. Biden issued an Earth Day executive order directing an inventory of old forests and policies to protect them.

“Without a federal rule in place to restrict logging of these critical forest tracts, these mature and old-growth trees could be lost, along with the opportunity to make significant progress toward addressing climate change,” said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, Senior Legislative Representative at Earthjustice.

Also today, more than 125 groups sent a letter to the U.S. Agriculture and Interior departments requesting an immediate start to a rulemaking process to ensure permanent protections for mature and old-growth trees and forests across federal lands, while allowing for necessary measures to reduce wildfire risk. Large, older trees are more resistant to wildfires and studies show logging them doesn’t reduce the risk of climate change-driven fires.

“This report highlights what we have—but also what we stand to lose,” said Alex Craven, senior campaign representative at the Sierra Club. “Our old and mature growths are a natural climate solution, and we must protect these trees if we wish to tackle the intersecting climate and biodiversity crises.”

Scientists have pointed to forest preservation as one of the most effective ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. U.S. federal forests sequester 35 million metric tons of carbon annually, a number that could rise steadily with new conservation measures.

Protecting older forests also safeguards clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, biodiversity and recreational opportunities.

The full report is available here: https://www.climate-forests.org/worth-more-standing