Environmental groups object to planned timber sale in Gifford Pinchot National Forest

While the agency says the move is necessary to maintain a healthy forest, environmental groups are decrying a decision by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to move forward on a timber sale in Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

On May 28, the USFS released a final decision on the Yellowjacket sale, which will harvest approximately 4,651 acres in the national forest using low-intensity thinning, high-intensity thinning, huckleberry enhancement and regeneration.

“The beneficial effects substantially outweigh any potential adverse effects, and any direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects will not reach the level of significance, as demonstrated by the analysis and specialist reports,” the decision states.

According to the report, “in light of climate change impacts, specific actions included in this project proposal work toward ensuring our national forests are conserved, restored, and made more resilient.”

In an outline of the project benefits, the USFS said there is a “need” to provide job opportunities through commercial timber production to support the rural economic environment. The report also found a need to “increase structural diversity of stands and address the overabundance of dense, mid-seral forest stands within the project area.”

Dense, mid-seral stands are “particularly susceptible to several interacting stressors associated with climate change,” the report says.

The project will also “accelerate the development of old-growth forest characteristics within the project area,” which includes large diameter, multi-storied forest stands with concentrations of down wood and standing dead trees.

In a statement following the decision, the Cascade Forest Conservancy said the plan does not protect critical habitats and that the impact of concentrated timber harvests was not sufficiently considered.

“Our national forests are on the frontline of climate change. These places contain the vast majority of our region’s remaining old-growth and mature forests; a resource that belongs to all of us. The science is clear. Protecting old-growth and mature forests in the Pacific Northwest is critical to slowing climate change and creating resilience to climate impacts for our local communities, ecosystems and wildlife,” Molly Whitney, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “It is imperative that we work to protect these forests and enhance connectivity, but in many ways, the decision released by the Forest Service fails to do that.”

The decision comes nearly three years after the USFS began scoping and after both an objection and comment period. During the review period, the USFS consulted with local tribes, state and federal agencies, and the Pinchot Partners, a forest collaborative group of stakeholders of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, according to the report.

According to the Conservancy, the plan to utilize regeneration is “essentially clear-cuts” and young forest habitats are “already being created by wildfire, drought, root disease, and insect outbreaks.”

In regeneration, older trees are cut down, which allows for the growth of younger trees at their base, a habitat that is preferred by deer and elk. Under regeneration, up to 90% of an existing canopy cover is removed.

“The Forest Service has acknowledged that protecting mature and old-growth forests is one of the simplest things it can do to combat climate change,” said Ryan Talbott, Pacific Northwest conservation advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “Yet the agency continues to approve sales like Yellowjacket that targets the very forests that it knows should be left standing. And keeping mature and old-growth forests intact not only benefits our climate but protects watersheds and wildlife habitat.”

Ashley Short, policy manager for Cascade Forest Conservancy, said the organization submitted official comments, collected data about stands out in the field, raised issues and filed objections during the planning process. While some of these concerns were incorporated into the final plan, Short said many were “ignored.”

According to USFS, the agency received 11 comments during a scoping period in 2021, 25 comments during an initial draft comment period in 2022, and eight comments on a revised draft of the report. The comments were “considered for pertinent issues and were used to inform the development of this project.”

In the report, the USFS said the agency considered a “no action” alternative to the Yellow Jacket plan. Had the agency not acted, the report states “commercial harvest contributions to the local economy would not happen, and forests would still lack structural diversity.”

According to the report, the surplus roads on the property “would not be decommissioned and would continue to impact wildlife habitat and aquatic resources” and a pond “would not undergo riparian habitat restoration.”