Forest Service drops controversial planning
And random thoughts about wildfire and government
Volume 3, Number 41 - Monday, Jan. 13, 2025
Published every Monday and Thursday
Perspective
I’VE WRITTEN BEFORE about “The Pyrocene” (HERE) and the Wildland Urban Interface (HERE), and it’s good to see national and regional media paying attention to these issues.
What’s not good is that many people may be learning about extreme fire behavior and the WUI only because firestorms are still raging in Los Angeles. The latest information from CalFire this morning (HERE) is that since Jan. 7. Acreage burned in the three active fires — Palisades, Eaton and Hurst — exceeds 38,000. Many other fires started and were put out or fully contained. At least 24 people have died, thousands of homes destroyed, many more people evacuated and others without power.
Less noticed news recently is that the Forest Service announced on Jan. 7 that it would withdraw a notice of intent to prepare a National Old Growth Amendment environmental impact statement — an effort that has been underway for the past two and a half years.
You can read Forest Service Chief Randy Moore’s statement about the decision HERE.
As reported on Science (HERE):
In 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden ordered government scientists to tally old growth and mature forests on federal land and to come up with a plan for protecting them. The inventory was released the following year, but efforts to improve protection have come to naught. This week, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) announced it would not proceed with developing a final plan.
The article at science.org by Erik Stokstad reports that:
The proposed plan, called the National Old Growth Amendment, would have prohibited commercial logging on about 10 million hectares of old growth and required all national forests to update their management plans to increase the resilience of old-growth stands.
I must admit that I haven’t paid much attention to the proposed Forest Plan amendment because the Sierra Nevada forests where giant sequoias grow are already covered — for the most part — by protective plans.
Also, I don’t believe that protective plans do much good because they don’t come with funding, take too long to develop, and are sometimes outdated before they are complete.
And, as Stokstad wrote for science.org:
Not much old growth is commercially logged these days compared with the "timber wars" of the 1990s, when cutting and societal debate was intense. These days, the agency concluded, the larger threats are fires and insect infestations, which are more severe because of climate change. Some landscapes are particularly vulnerable, such as the ponderosa pine forests of the Sierra Nevada and inland west, because of decades of fire suppression, which allowed dead wood to accumulate much more than normal.
AND SO, continuing this Monday morning … last Thursday I wrote about Santa Ana winds and reported (HERE) that some scientists suggested that the LA fires were tied to climate change and others said it was too early to say.
After Thursday’s newsletter was published, I read a piece by Sharon Friedman, founder and Managing Editor of The Smokey Wire (HERE), in which she reported on an interview with US Geological Survey scientist Jon Keeley, who said he did not believe the LA fires were a result of climate change.
You can read Michael Shellenberger’s article HERE, and an excerpt:
“If you look at the past 100 years of climates in Southern California,” said Keeley, “you will find there have been Januaries that have been very dry. And there's been autumns that have been very dry. There have been Santa Ana winds in January. So these sorts of conditions are what contribute to a fire being particularly destructive at this time of the year. But it's not the result of climate change.”
AND A LITTLE RANT …
You may know that environmental review for federal lands is covered by NEPA — the National Environmental Policy Act — and that California has its own law, CEQA — the California Environmental Quality Act. Both laws require various levels of environmental review for activities and have some options for waivers. That’s an oversimplification, but sufficient here, I think.
Coastal California since the 1970s has also been subject to special rules and governance by the California Coastal Commission.
Yesterday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order (HERE, with info HERE), “to suspend permitting and review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act to allow victims of the recent fires to restore their homes and businesses faster.”
I agree that we’ve had what some have called “paralysis by analysis.” Still, I have two thoughts about this:
Where has the Governor been as thousands of other Californians have struggled — and are still struggling — following other natural disasters and a growing housing crisis?
Before we even know how these fires started, why is the Governor so eager to allow homes and businesses to be rebuilt in the WUI and sensitive environmental areas without the review required of others?
Yes, I know — politics and money.
End of rant.
Wildfire, water & weather update
Yikes! It looks like sunny and dry weather will continue throughout the Sierra Nevada for the next 10 days or so. As I said last Thursday, this is indeed unfortunate.
Climate.gov reported HERE that La Niña conditions are back (which I think we might have already figured out, albeit without the scientific specificity).
It’s January, and California’s Fire Weather map HERE shows more areas under a Red Flag Warning — mostly coastal areas all the way from the Mexican border north to parts of San Luis Obispo County. In some areas the National Weather Service has issued a rare PDS — Particularly Dangerous Situation — warning. Read more HERE.
All of the Central and Southern Sierra Nevada are labeled “abnormally dry” on the California Drought Map (HERE), and more of Southern California is officially in drought.
Did you know you can comment here?
It’s easy to comment on items in this newsletter. Just scroll down, and you’ll find a comment box. You’re invited to join the conversation!
Thanks for reading!
Re: "politics and money," indeed!
I have to confess I don't fully understand the withdrawal of a National Old Growth Amendment environmental impact statement. I read the letter written by Randy Moore about the "learning and feedback" they received, and I didn't see anything new there. Perhaps this is a veiled effort to permit the NFS to log in old-growth forests, which they have done many times? It's hard for me not to be skeptical about their intent, and it reminds me that I am glad I am not part of the government or enforcement.