More time to save our big trees!
There’s still time to comment on the Forest Service’s plan to allow logging of big trees on public lands. Last month, we urged you to submit comments on this plan. We recently learned that the Forest Service granted our conservation allies' request to extend the time for public comment. The new deadline is October 13.
Old-growth forests are more fire resilient than forests that have been logged. In a time of climate chaos and devastating wildfire across our state, the Forest Service should use its precious resources on forest restoration, not giveaways to the timber industry. The proposed rule change would allow logging of big trees greater than 21” in diameter. Big trees keep forests cool and moist, keep streams cold, keep soils healthy, store atmospheric carbon, and are vital habitat to many species of wildlife. Allowing harvest of big trees is not only unnecessary for restoring our forests, but reverses progress we’ve made to recover our forests from too many decades of logging, grazing, and fire suppression.
A comment period on this proposal is open until October 13. This is your chance to tell the Forest Service to uphold the 21” rule.
Below you will find a letter that can be copied and pasted in and email to the Forest Service.
Click below to take action.
Or, submit your own comments via the Forest Service’s online portal: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?project=58050 or via email: SM.FS.EScreens21@usda.gov.
Dear Shane Jeffries, Forest Supervisor, Ochoco National Forest:
I want the Forest Service to maintain protections for all large trees over 21” on Central and Eastern Oregon National Forests. After too many decades of overgrazing, fire suppression, and logging, our forests are in need of restoration. Preserving big trees is crucial to restoration efforts, as big trees provide habitat for wildlife, keep soils healthy, keep water clean and cold, and store carbon pollution. Forest managers already have the ability to design projects to restore forest health without removing protections for big trees.
The Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens is just two decades old and has only begun its work to restore late, old structure forests. I envision a future with large swaths of old-growth forest throughout Central and Eastern Oregon, and the Wildlife Standard is critical to achieving that vision. I prefer a numerical standard that ensures all big trees >21” in diameter will be preserved, not the proposed guideline that puts our biggest trees at risk.
When the Eastside Screens were adopted, a broader holistic review of eastside forest policy was promised but the Forest Service has not delivered on that promise. The Draft Environmental Assessment fails to disclose the far-reaching effects of this significant revision to the Eastside Screens. How will the preferred alternative affect all sensitive species and management indicator species that need big trees? How will it affect the carbon storage capability of our forests? How will it impact water quality and fish habitat? How will it affect dry forests versus moist-mixed conifer forests? How will it affect the recruitment of future big trees, snags, and downed wood? At a minimum, I request an EIS that discloses these and other significant environmental effects.
Oregonians deeply value our public lands, and especially our big trees and the wildlife they support. The proposed weakening of the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens is at odds with these values, and I urge you to abandon this proposal and pursue other more pressing restoration needs on our National Forests.
Sincerely,
[Your name]