The federal government is readying to fire up more chain saws in the Northwest’s national forests.
President Donald Trump’s executive order last month laid the groundwork for wholesale changes in national forest management. But just when and where more cutting could happen is up in the air.
National forests are among the Northwest’s recreational jewels — the public lands that are available for camping and hiking offer more flexibility than national parks for bringing a dog, a horse, and motorized and mountain bike recreation on some shared-use trails.
These forests also are logged for timber — and the administration wants to up the cut. Here at home, that means timber managers are under a directive to help contribute to a 25% increase in logging volume over the next several years.
In Washington, parts of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Colville and Umatilla national forests are targeted for increased logging.
In all, the administration has put more than 100 million acres of national forests across the country up for accelerated logging with a sidestepping of environmental laws to address a declared emergency of fire risk and domestic lumber supply. Nearly 60% of the country’s national forests are subject to the order.
There has long been a push by industry to increase logging in Washington, home to some of the nation’s most productive forests and coveted timber species, such as Douglas fir and cedar. A feud over state forest lands resulted in a pause for now on logging older trees on state lands.
Now the Trump administration has called for a “new era” in logging the national forests.
There has been a lot of confusion as the administration proposes actions, then retreats. All eyes are now on national forest regional offices to see just what emerges on federal lands by way of new timber sales.
What did Trump do, exactly?
The executive order issued March 1 and a subsequent secretary’s memorandum issued April 3 invoked emergency authorities to increase logging volume by 25% nationally.
To do it, Acting Associate Chief of the Forest Service Christopher French directed managers to “simplify permitting, remove National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, reduce implementation and contracting burdens … to ensure that the Forest Service delivers a reliable and consistent supply of timber.”
The map produced by the Forest Service as part of a secretary’s memorandum implementing Trump’s executive order shows where logging is expected to be increased.
Trump administration targets national forests for logging
Claiming emergencies in timber supply and fire risk, the Trump administration has called for a “new era” in national forest management, bypassing environmental reviews and upping logging volume by 25%. The lands targeted for increased logging include protected areas and old growth forests.
Can he do that?
That remains to be seen.
“There is no there there,” said Kristen Boyles, managing attorney at the Earthjustice Northwest regional office in Seattle. “The one thing they did do is declare this an emergency situation, which frankly is ludicrous.
“There is no emergency … that is just part of the grift.”
There are still national laws on the books — the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and more that create hurdles for a rush to cut, Boyles noted. The president’s order states that its execution must be consistent with existing law and land use plans.
Another limiting factor is staffing. The administration is calling for increased activity by the Forest Service even as it has been slashing staff.
What reduces wildfire risk?
These policies also are no way to reduce fire risk, critics said.
That requires creating more defensible space around homes; doing more prescribed burns and thinning of smaller trees, said Steve Pedery, conservation director at Oregon Wild. “But what you get from those projects is not attractive to the timber mills, what they want is generally bigger trees, and where you find big trees is in more remote places and in critical habitat for endangered species.”
The American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group based in Portland, along with several Washington timber-rich counties, filed a lawsuit earlier this month to eliminate federal critical habitat protections in forests set aside for the northern spotted owl. The set-asides are eliminating economically valuable timber land for protection of an animal whose biggest problem is actually displacement by the barred owl, the suit argues.
The U.S. Fish an Wildlife Service has approved a massive kill program to take out the barred owl and reduce pressure on the spotted owl, so they could eventually rebuild populations — if the habitat is still there to support them. Spotted owls need old-growth forests, home to the food they eat, and the roosting territory they require.
The kill program has been attacked in court by animal welfare groups. Just how and where the barred owl cull will go forward under the new administration is unknown. The agency says implementing the strategy is voluntary, “and will be largely based on available resources and done in specific, collaboratively-selected areas where it will provide maximum cost efficiency and flexibility for land managers.”
What does the climate science say?
One thing is certain, though: it is the biggest, oldest trees that sequester the most carbon from the atmosphere, and cutting those will only worsen the climate crisis, said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at Wild Heritage.
A 2022 peer-reviewed scientific study found preserving the largest trees in older forests across the U.S. — which are overwhelming in national forests — would reduce the equivalent of nearly 10% of U.S. carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning.
