Old growth & critical salmon & steelhead habitat on the chopping block through the proposed Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest Plan
Riparian zones with old growth trees are critical habitat for fisheries, and currently threatened by the new Forest Plan. Photo credit: Lochsa River, IRU staff
In IRU’s coverage of the proposed update to the Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest Plan, we’ve focused on the Forest Service’s decision to drastically reduce river protections afforded to eligible and suitable rivers and streams under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This attack on one of our most powerful tools for river conservation is unjust, unfounded, and simply counterintuitive to the broader conservation goals of the region, especially when one considers the investments and momentum surrounding salmon and steelhead recovery.
With such an affront to river protections that have been in place for more than thirty years, it raises the question of why take such drastic measures to reduce river and riparian protections. The simple answer is to clear the way for a dramatic increase in timber production.
The Nez Perce-Clearwater stands on its own when comparing all other National Forests within Region 1 that have completed a Forest Plan Revision since the promulgation of the 2012 planning rule. In all other cases, Forests expanded protections and recognized additional worthy candidates for inclusion within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System while we see the opposite within this Plan.
Throughout the Forest Service’s narrative analysis of river suitability, they argue that “management activities to improve forest health, enhance wildlife and fish habitat, and achieve desired future conditions could be affected or foreclosed with designation.” This repeated argument unduly focuses on the perceived negative and is outright biased.
While eligibility or a final designation would add a layer of complexity to any management activities within an eligible corridor or an activity that may impact an eligible river, it simply requires the Forest to take the time to design thoughtful projects that don’t lead to negative impacts. The Forest Service admits that by stating elsewhere that “designation as a wild and scenic river does not prohibit management activities within a river corridor or adjacent lands” and even for rivers protected with the most restrictive “wild” status, nearly all management activities are allowed.
This issue essentially boils down to the Forest Service stating that the mandate to manage and protect eligible rivers within their boundaries while moving forward with management activities to move the Forest closer to desired conditions is too complex and burdensome. Instead, they’ve chosen to simplify the problem by eliminating these interim protections on 86% of the rivers they initially deemed eligible. It should be noted that of the rivers they have elected to retain protections, nearly all are already protected by various wilderness areas where active management that the Forest is pursuing is a moot point.
So, what are the management activities that the Forest claims would be foreclosed by Wild and Scenic River protections? The Forest utilizes commercial timber sales, selective cutting, prescribed burns, and a variety of other treatments to move a forest toward the overall desired condition. However, in the context of this Plan, the Forest Service seems to assume that essentially any management activity would add too much complexity to the planning and implementation process.
Within this Plan, one of the main tools the Forest appears to be eager to utilize to move towards desired conditions is commercial timber harvest. Where will all this new timber come from? One area that we have identified that will help increase this commercial production, as well as play a major role in the argument that eligible rivers curtail desired management activities, has to do with the proposed changes to allowable management practices within riparian areas.
In the new Plan, the Forest is departing from riparian conservation measures that have been in place for decades. By establishing new “Riparian Management Zones,” the Forest segments the previous 300-foot buffer zone surrounding fish-bearing streams into an inner and outer zone. In the new “outer zone,” 150-300 feet from a fish-bearing stream, commercial timber harvest will now be suitable and actively pursued, something that had not been allowable under the previous plan within the entire 300-foot buffer zone since the 1990s when nationwide conservation measures were adopted to protect and preserve critical fisheries habitat.
The new plan will:
Increase the projected timber sale quantity from the current annual average of 60 million board feet to 190 million, an increase of 217%;
Expands the maximum size allowable for clearcutting to more than 200 acres;
Open riparian areas containing critical habitat to commercial timber harvest that has been protected for decades and consequentially helped to halt the loss of old-growth forests.
It is clear and well understood that decades of fire suppression and outdated management best practices have left our National Forests unbalanced and in need of a course correction. However, to address these conditions, we cannot allow the Forest Service to roll back some of the most important aquatic guardrails and lose sight of the gains that have been made in our rivers. It is possible to address the issue of forest health without sacrificing rivers and riparian areas along the way. It will require slightly more time and more thoughtfully designed projects, but we certainly think that it is worth the effort and we will continue to hold the Forest Service accountable as we fight this terrible Forest Plan.
