The Agency Managing Old-Growth Forests Faces Challenges in Adapting
Photo by David Herasimtschuk
Opinion: The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Sierra Club.
In 2002, I retired as deputy chief of the US Forest Service after a 35-year career. I was pleasantly surprised when President Biden announced Executive Order 14072, aimed at conserving America’s mature and old-growth forests on federal lands. This move signaled a promising future for these vital ecosystems.
A pressing question emerged: Would the White House direct the Forest Service to implement this order or simply ask them? My experience suggested that without strict oversight, the agency might do as little as possible for as long as possible.
The Forest Service has historically prioritized logging over protecting wilderness, wild rivers, roadless areas, and old-growth forests. Post-WWII, the agency aggressively expanded timber production, reducing millions of acres of mature and old-growth (MOG) forests. Performance remains gauged by timber harvests, neglecting broader measures of forest health.
The EO directs the Forest Service to restore and conserve MOG, yet the agency has been slow to embrace this opportunity. Despite the significant carbon storage capacity of MOG forests, the agency has done little to protect them from logging.
In my career, I observed the Forest Service’s resistance to wilderness protection. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Regulation, which halted logging on 60 million acres, faced substantial internal opposition.
The Biden administration’s approach allowed the Forest Service to shape the EO’s implementation. The order did not explicitly address logging as a primary threat to MOG, even though the agency continues to log significant areas. Furthermore, no interim policies were introduced to conserve MOG while formal policies were developed.
Essential interim steps could have included: issuing a statement supporting the EO, reviewing logging projects for MOG impacts, suspending MOG logging, and streamlining procedural steps to expedite policy completion.
A black bear traverses a downed log in a verdant old-growth forest, illustrating its many nonmonetary values. | Photo by David Herasimtschuk
Environmentalists initially collaborated with Biden officials on the EO to protect MOG. However, the final document omitted logging as a threat. The EO required an MOG inventory and definitions, ensuring a slow process.
Forest Service bureaucrats adeptly navigate policy, often manipulating outcomes to align with their preferences. Subtle changes and omissions can significantly alter policy impacts. The EO text reflects such influence, allowing compliance while diluting its intent.
The omission of logging threats appears intentional. The agency addressed this in its threat assessment, minimizing the impact of logged MOG forests and reducing their remaining expanse.
While managing forest fires, the agency should also prioritize MOG conservation. Fire and MOG are interconnected, and both can be addressed simultaneously. However, the agency often prioritizes fire management over preserving rare MOG ecosystems.
Fire management has cost billions with limited success. Fires transform rather than destroy forests, with severely burned areas consuming about 15% of tree populations. Dead trees retain significant carbon and enhance biodiversity until decomposing into soil.
The EO’s intent to conserve MOG has led to more logging. The Forest Service continues its traditional practices, overlooking MOG’s critical role in carbon sequestration and forest diversity in a changing climate.
Given the potential for policy reversal under future administrations, I advise the Forest Service to pause policy actions. Forest supervisors and district rangers should embrace the EO’s spirit, preserving MOG forests under their jurisdiction. While formal policies await, the arc of history supports conservation efforts.
Original Story at www.sierraclub.org