In October 2019, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) submitted comments about three U.S. Forest Service (FS) proposals in the Angelina and Sabine National Forests. The three proposals are:
1) The North Angelina Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Midstory Reduction Project (NARCWMRP) in Angelina National Forest (ANF), which would log 5,065 acres.
2) The Bi-Sep First Thinning Project (BSFTP) in ANF which will log 83 pine plantations on 4,095 acres.
3) The 260,000-acre Angelina-Sabine Prescribed Fire Project (ASPFP) in ANF and Sabine National Forest (SNF).
Each proposal is different and resulted in different Sierra Club comments. For the NSRCWMRP, the Sierra Club focused its’ comments on the protection of ecological/biological legacies. These legacies consist of individual/groups of upland hardwood trees (both xeric/mesic upland hardwood trees), cavities, dens, snags (standing dead trees), coarse woody debris (downed trees), logs in streams, thickets, root-wads, etc., that enhance forest growth, ecological health, production, and the operation of ecological processes.
The Sierra Club stated that the ecological health of the forest is what the FS should be most concerned about. Ecological/biological legacies should be protection or created in the areas to be logged so that as the forest matures the full benefit of ecological functions, processes, and diversity are in place and working for the health of the forest.
The BSFTP included recommendations for protection of ecological/biological legacies and aggressive control of non-native invasive plant and animal species (like feral hogs and Chinese Tallow); implementation of wildlife indicator species monitoring; cutting limits that ensure an area is not altered drastically over a short time period and is detrimental to the RCW; buffer zone protection for ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams; and against “condition-based management” where the FS can log an area for decades with no public collaboration, participation, and input and ignore needed environmental laws and analysis.
Some of the Sierra Club comments about the ASPFP centered about the need for an environmental impacts statement; a lack of an end date whereby the proposal will go back before the public for review and comment; biased environmental analysis and the lack of alternatives; ignoring the Sierra Club’s scoping comments; and the use of a “No Action Alternative” which does not reflect the current FS burning program.
The Sierra Club will continue to monitor and provide input to the FS about these proposals.
Article submitted by Brandt Mannchen.