Region Archives: United States

The Trump administration has proposed drastically limiting the public’s say in how federal lands are used at a time when the president is pushing to fast-track logging, mining and oil extraction. That’s raising concerns amongst conservationists and environmental advocates, who worry that the changes could have a profound impact on Oregonians’ relationship with the lands around them. More than half the land in Oregon is federally owned, as is about 29% of land in Washington. …Under President Donald Trump, 16 federal agencies are now considering rule changes that could curtail or drastically limit this public input, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. Those proposed changes were announced in early July. The public has until Monday to provide input on the changes for the U.S Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. …Data shows that public comments can make a difference.

@US Forest Service

Four conservation groups — Native Ecosystems Council, Council on Wildlife and Fish, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection — have filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the United States Forest Service and Flathead National Forest of ignoring its own scientists to push ahead on a logging project that would likely imperil grizzly bears, and cut old-growth forests. The lawsuit also claims federal forest officials have intentionally created two adjacent logging projects that would have likely violated federal laws if combined, and instead split them up into two smaller projects to avoid scrutiny. The Forest Service said it does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit claims that the Cyclone Bill Logging Project, 13 miles west of Whitefish, will cut and burn on more than 12,000 acres, which includes Canada lynx and grizzly bear habitat, both protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The Washington Forest Practices Board is proposing new legislation pushed by the Washington Department of Ecology that will affect all of us financially. The Washington Forest Practices Board (FPB) is supposedly an “independent” state agency responsible for establishing rules that govern forest practices in Washington state. It’s chaired by the Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove. …The FPB is proposing streams that are perennial with no fish should have the existing no-harvest buffers changed from 50 feet each side of the stream to 75 feet (or more). The proposal affects not only the stream buffer width, but the length of stream buffer and volume of restricted trees. Why does it affect you? All timber harvests are taxed by the state of Washington — 4% of the net log value goes back to the county the trees were harvested in. …You are affected by this proposed change in law that does nothing for fish.

The Trump administration’s tumultuous relationship with China is proving to be a major issue for some companies in Alaska’s forest products industry. That includes in Haines, where a timber sale that was supposed to kick off this spring has stalled amid China’s ban on US log imports. China announced the ban in March, citing concerns over pests like bark and longhorn beetles in US shipments. The move came the same day that China imposed retaliatory tariffs on certain US agricultural products amid President Donald Trump’s global trade war. The decision has had sweeping effects on companies that harvest logs in Alaska and ship them overseas. …The trade disputes have also hit Canadian lumber company Transpac Group. The company in March largely shut down its site on Afognak Island, just north of Kodiak, citing the ban and failed efforts to divert its product to other markets.

Throughout her two decades working on forestry issues, Jasmine Minbashian has often found herself at odds with the US Forest Service and the timber industry. Her environmental activism started during the second wave of Pacific Northwest “Timber Wars”. …She joined the North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative in 2019. …The group is one of 19 forest collaboratives focused on public lands in Washington and Oregon that emerged in the wake of the “Timber Wars” in an attempt to find agreement around contentious forestry issues. …These forest collaboratives, touted as a model of consensus-driven conservation, have quietly become influential engines for federal forest management decisions across the West. But critics worry the groups are too aligned with timber interests that prioritize commercial logging, and that they helped pave the way for the Trump administration’s latest effort to expand logging on public lands throughout the country by skirting environmental protection laws.

There are obvious benefits to logging, grazing, prescribed burns, and mechanical thinning of California’s forests. When you suppress wildfires for what is now over a century, then overregulate and suppress any other means to thin the forest, you get overcrowded and unhealthy forests. California’s trees now have 5 to 10 times more than a historically normal density. They’re competing for an insufficient share of light, water and nutrients, leading to disease, infestations, dehydration and death. Up through the 1980s, California harvested 6 billion board feet per year of timber; the annual harvest is now 25% of that. We have turned our forests into tinderboxes. …For the sake of California’s water supply, its energy security, the safety of people living in the forests, and the health of our trees and wildlife, Californian needs to revive its logging industry. …It will also enable something counterintuitive: precious and endangered wildlife can thrive in a responsibly managed forest.

Wildfires are getting more catastrophic and expensive. For the last decade, Oregon policymakers haven’t been able to agree on how to pay for them. And while lawmakers emerged from this year’s legislative session with a plan to fund wildfire prevention, there’s still no dedicated funding to fight large fires like the Cram Fire, which has burned nearly 100,000 acres in Central Oregon. The total wildfire budget for the next two years is less than the state spent last year alone. And in some cases, costs that used to be borne by insurance plans and private landowners are now the responsibility of all Oregonians. A similar phrase cropped up during multiple interviews with policymakers: The consensus lawmakers reached this year is a good “first step.” What’s less clear is if it’s enough. ….“Oregonians writ large, are going to be the ones to pay for it,” said Casey Kulla, with Oregon Wild.