Livestock groups have raised “grave” concerns over the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) draft plan for old-growth forest conservation, warning it could severely undermine public lands management. At the same time, environmental groups and lawmakers criticized the proposal for insufficiently protecting old-growth forests from logging, expressing worries about the future of the ecosystems.
Kaitlynn Glover, Public Lands Council (PLC) executive director, wrote on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Sheep Industry Association and the Association of National Grasslands that they have concerns regarding the agency’s preferred alternative. They argue USFS is hindered by bureaucratic delays and self-imposed restrictions on active management, which has led to escalating suppression costs and vast untreated, fire-prone areas.
“Federal forests are facing increasing threats from fire, drought, insects and damage from unmanaged multiple use,” the letter read. “PLC is concerned the preferred alternative would require additional staff burden to evaluate and approve even the most basic projects, but would represent another litigation risk for agencies attempting to carry out Congress’ mandates.”
Glover wrote they prefer the no-action alternative even though it has “yielded poor, high-risk results.”
The letter continued that the preferred alternative places unsustainable budgetary and personnel demands on USFS, which is already dealing with severe financial constraints and cutting essential programs. These challenges will worsen as the agency focuses on large-scale forest plan amendments instead of prioritizing critical forest management work, the groups said.
Glover wrote that the environmental impact statement fails to adequately assess social, economic and socioeconomic impacts, including grazing opportunities on USFS lands. The groups said the plan overlooks thousands of forest allotments that rely on effective forest management to maintain grazing conditions and mitigate the growing risk of catastrophic wildfires.
“While PLC appreciates the need for forest management and land use plans can remain responsive to current needs, we believe the proposed actions will make it more difficult for the agency to properly balance multiple use while mitigating the ever-present threat of fire risk,” the letter concluded. “We remain concerned that ‘protecting old growth’ is simply being used as a proxy to reduce the agency’s tools to manage forested ecosystems.”
While the groups are concerned about managing old-growth forests, lawmakers and environmental groups urged stronger protections.
A letter from 33 Congress members to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urged USFS “to take concrete steps to conserve mature forests with the intention of nurturing future old-growth forests.”
The lawmakers emphasized that language protecting existing old-growth forests from degradation is critical to the amendment’s success. While they support the USFS’ effort to conserve future old-growth forests, they urged the agency to strengthen protections for both mature and old-growth forests in the final environmental impact statement.
Environmental groups expressed similar sentiments, stating the proposal does not protect old-growth forests that confront the climate change crisis.
“The National Old Growth Amendment should be a transformative policy that positions the United States as an international leader in harnessing nature to confront the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis,” the coalition of groups said in a statement. “We hope to see the nationwide old-growth amendment strengthened so it can become a centerpiece of our nation’s climate and conservation legacies.”
USFS considered four alternatives in the draft environmental impact statement, including the no-action alternative and a preferred alternative proposing strategic amendments to existing land management plans (LMPs). The preferred alternative would add goals, objectives, standards, guidelines and monitoring requirements to each plan based on a detailed review of forested conditions.
According to an appendix of the impact statement, LMPs were grouped into four categories. The first category is primarily unforested grasslands, and limited action would occur in forested areas. Categories 2, 3 and 4 LMPs would be amended with the complete set of proposed plan components, with exceptions only if unique circumstances justify not implementing the full suite of proposed components.
Category 2 units with existing old-growth components would see minor adjustments, Category 3 units lacking restrictive standards would experience noticeable management changes, and Category 4 units with old-growth potential but no components would undergo significant shifts in old-growth management.
According to USFS, a decision and implementation is estimated on Jan. 1, 2025. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
