Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

US Forest Service failing to protect old growth trees from logging, critics say

News Feed
Thursday, August 1, 2024

They are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife.Little Rock Pond Shelter in Green Mountain national forest, Vermont. Photograph: Leon Werdinger/AlamyYet, the US Forest Service has not included mature trees in this new plan, which also includes loopholes conservationists say allow ongoing felling of trees that are hundreds of years old. The Forest Service, responsible for 154 national forests and nearly 25m acres (10m hectares) of old growth trees in the US, has also largely declined to conduct required reviews of multiple logging projects amid a stampede of tree cutting that threatens the oldest, richest trees before any new curtailments are imposed.“The largest logging projects I’ve ever seen are targeting the last, best remaining old growth trees left in the country,” said Chad Hanson, a forest ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project.Hanson said the Forest Service had failed to properly follow the president’s directive, instead allowing logging that imperils the remaining trove of the US’s long-lived, untouched trees.“We have a rogue agency in the Forest Service that is trying to benefit the logging industry before reforms take place,” he said. “The situation is rampant as far as I can tell and it risks squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect these incredible forests.”The Forest Service – which has defended its approach – approved 31 logging projects covering 116,460 acres of old growth forests just between December and April, a recent agency report states. A further 18 planned cutting projects within old growth forests are being considered.In all, dozens of major logging projects are being advanced across the US, including the felling of 130,000 acres of old growth forest, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Chicago, in Plumas national forest in California; a plan to cut 95,000 acres in the Yaak River Valley in Montana that contains 600-year-old larch trees; and a program called the Telephone Gap project that aims to hack away a portion of ancient forest in Vermont that is 90% old growth and mature trees.Many of these plans have been granted approval since Biden’s executive order in April 2022 that demanded his agencies take action to protect the most storied, grandest trees in the US. The overall amount of logging in national forests has surged 24% during Biden’s term, despite him committing, along with 144 other world leaders, to reverse deforestation by 2030.The Forest Service has rejected the suggestion that it is allowing the timber industry to plunder older trees, pointing to reduced cutting rates compared with previous decades and a service policy to “protect, maintain and improve old growth forest conditions”. It also defended its policy on reviewing, saying all projects that fell under the scope of the mature and old growth requirement were looked at.Critics, though, see an agency pushing through a rush of logging before outdated practices are overturned. “It’s insane, there’s just no justification for this,” said Hanson, who is part of a legal effort to prevent logging amid giant sequoias, a project ostensibly to protect a species that only grows in a 60-mile band along California’s Sierra Nevada. “Why would we log giant sequoias of any size? It’s just crazy.”A red sequoia tree reaches for the sky alongside other trees. Photograph: Edu Borja/Getty ImagesIn response, environmentalists have launched legal action to stymie logging from New Hampshire to California, while tree-sitting protesters have occupied targeted woodland in Oregon. Scores of scientists have written to Biden warning that the outgoing president’s climate legacy is at risk and lamenting that “we have lost too many of those living witnesses of the past.” The “timber wars”, a fierce 1970s struggle over the future of forests that helped preserve the last fragments of old growth, appear to be rekindling, 50 years on.“If the Biden administration wants this process to be something more than a greenwashing exercise, then it must put stronger pressure on the Forest Service,” said Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, a Vermont conservation group. “Biden needs to intervene to live up to his climate goals, because at the moment this process is going off the rails.”There are trees standing in America far older than the country itself. Perhaps the most famous of these, the gargantuan giant sequoias of California, can surpass the grizzled age of 3,000 years as they grow to a towering 300ft tall and slowly layer a bulk of several hundred tons, making them one of the oldest, as well as largest, organisms on Earth.A bristlecone pine, also in California, is thought to be even more ancient, clocking in at around 4,800 years old. Other species in the US range in the hundreds of years old, having survived in plunging ravines or remote mountaintops from the ravages of axe and chainsaw.Such timeworn trees were long seen as worthless. “They were viewed as old and decrepit and valuable for logging, not much else,” said Jim Furnish, a former deputy chief of the Forest Service, which was established in 1905 and has long had strong ties to the timber industry.“If you cut down the older trees, you then get younger forests that can provide timber quickly,” Furnish said. “That was the rationale, which has left us with very little old growth.”In recent decades, however, scientists have amassed evidence that older trees are treasure troves of life. They draw up and then expel moisture into the surrounding air like a sort of biotic pump, essentially creating their own weather systems, filtering water (national forests provide a fifth of the US’s clean water supply) and offering homes in craggy hollows to a panoply of wildlife.As they grow, the trees’ bark thickens, making them and the surrounding forest more resistant to fire. A network of fungi helps spread a bounty of water and nutrients to the forest community. When these trees, having mopped up huge doses of carbon dioxide, eventually die, the toppled trunks regenerate soil, nourishing trees and animals around them.“Their value is just off the charts,” said Dominick DellaSala, a veteran forest researcher. “You cut down a tree like that and you destroy habitat and lose 80% of that stored carbon into the atmosphere, more carbon than is lost from a fire. There’s just no reason to do it.”A rethink on old growth followed a bitter battle over the imperiled northern spotted owl in the Pacific north-west, with millions of acres of the bird’s favored aged forest habitat ultimately set aside from cutting in 1994. The Forest Service points to a nationwide decline in logging since this time, with the agency considering wildfires, insect infestations and the climate crisis to now be the greatest threats to US forests.Still, there has been an uptick in logging since Biden became president in 2021, with the Forest Service removing 2.94bn board ft (7.27m cubic metres)of timber from national forests last year, enough to fill more than 1.25m logging trucks, according to advocacy group calculations on agency data. The Forest Service still works towards “timber targets” that, it recently told Congress, it could increase with more resources and speedier environmental reviews.The agency has a deep-rooted mindset of muscular “management” of forests rather than just letting them grow, according to DellaSala. “They will always argue for chainsaws and bulldozers, no matter what the issue is,” he said. There is plenty that could still be cut, too – just a quarter of the 112m acres of old growth and mature forests on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land is protected, DellaSala’s research has calculated.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionForests had long been selectively cut or burned by Native Americans but the arrival of European settlers kickstarted the widespread razing of trees for timber and farmland, to the extent that a mere 5% of original forest, scattered in small patches of trees, is left across the country. In the eastern US, barely 1% remains.The Biden effort to stem losses of old growth trees, therefore, ignited optimism that a major turning point had arrived. “We have lost so much, there is such a deficit that we are recovering from,” said Sarah Adloo, executive director of the Old Growth Forest Network. “So just hearing the words ‘old growth’ from the president’s mouth was really wonderful.”Biden ordered the Forest Service and the BLM, which collectively manage forests spanning about 250m acres, an estate about double the size of Spain, to conduct the first inventories of remaining old growth and mature forest and set about updating individual forest plans to curb their loss. “These forests are an essential partner in tackling climate change,” insisted Ali Zaidi, a senior White House climate adviser.The timber industry, long used to procuring valuable wood from some of the largest, and therefore usually oldest, trees on public land, reacted with dismay. “We are extremely concerned about the disruption this unprecedented approach will have on urgently needed management efforts,” said Bill Imbergamo, head of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, an industry group, citing the imperative, disputed by many scientists outside industry or government, to actively cut or “thin” forests to prevent insect outbreaks, or to reduce wildfire risk.But environmentalists also saw flaws. There is no universal definition of old growth – some scientists class it as trees that have reached about 120 years in age – but there is agreement that mature trees, of about 80 years in age, must be protected to ensure more old growth in the future. The Forest Service plan, presented in December and recently updated with a draft environmental assessment, does not include mature trees, however, despite them covering more than double the area, about 68m acres, of old growth, according to the agency’s inventory of its managed land.“If you allow mature trees to be cut, you get no additional old growth,” Porter said. The Forest Service plan, which is on track to be finalized in January, also allows the felling of old growth trees for purported environmental reasons, which could be used to justify further logging that many scientists say actually worsens fire and pests.“It’s clear to me that the Forest Service is intent on promoting a new era of destructive commercial logging in old growth forests on public lands, while trying to deceptively spin it as wildfire management, forest health and community protection,” said Hanson. “Why isn’t President Biden telling the Forest Service no, and insisting that mature and old growth forests be fully protected from logging, as hundreds of scientists have urged?”In December, Chris French, the deputy head of the Forest Service, did send an agency-wide memo requiring all logging projects that include old growth forests to be reviewed and approved by service leadership before proceeding.However, when the Guardian asked the Forest Service about the status of 29 contentious logging projects across the US, the agency confirmed only five had been reviewed, with many rejected for assessment because of a supposed lack of old growth, or because the projects had started before the memo, even though such a constraint was not stipulated in the original edict.A Forest Service spokesperson said mature forests were not included in the plan because climate change “introduces a lot of uncertainty” as to where older forests can survive. “The goal is not to manage all mature forest as future old-growth forest,” he said. “In some cases, places that are currently forests will no longer be forests. In others, the plants and animals will change dramatically. So, a strict preservation approach might not work.”The spokesperson added that the service was “clearly harvesting much less timber” than it was in the period up to around 1990, when policies started to shift towards ecological needs and logging focused more on younger, plantation-based, trees.He also denied that reviews of old growth logging projects were being overlooked by service leadership, or sidestepped by local forest managers. “All projects that fall within the scope of the mature and old growth requirement are reviewed,” the spokesperson said. “Forest projects are reviewed by both the regional and national offices, so it is unlikely that forests could ignore the direction.”On a recent, steamy late-spring day, Porter led a small group through a section of the Green Mountain national forest, a 400,000-acre slice of rich northern hardwood forest in Vermont, a rare splash of older trees in a region denuded of original forest. Black bears, moose and beavers are found in this place, which has a touch of the prehistoric about it, with its gurgling streams, ferns and moss-covered boulders.“These are big, big trees for the eastern US, there’s nothing much like this left,” said John Roe, a retired forest ecologist, as he surveyed the soaring stands of maple, ash and birch. “This sort of forest is of global importance.” The trees have rebounded since the US civil war era, when farmers abandoned the area. Give these trees another 160 years, Roe said, and you will see the sort of complex, intact forest there was before European arrival.Many of these trees won’t get the chance to do so – the Forest Service is considering a logging program, called Telephone Gap, that will hew about 12,000 acres, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan, containing mostly mature trees with some old growth. “My worry is we foolishly sacrifice more than a century of recovery here,” said Porter.If you trudge deeper into the heart of this national forest you get to a lake called the North Pond, an idyllic spot favored by beavers and fringed by slopes of trees, many that have never been cleaved. Clamber over some rocks and slippery moss into these stands and you can find sentinels that have stood amid this scene for timescales that leave the modern world behind.Roe holds a tape measure to the bark of a grand yellow birch – 39in in diameter, probably 300 or so years old. A tree that was overlooking this lake, passing the seasons, before George Washington was born. “This is a monster,” Roe said, gawping up at the tree.In March, Porter got an email from the district ranger overseeing the planned logging project, stating that there was “no need” for the plan to be sent to Forest Service leadership for a review as it would not disturb what the forest managers define to be true old growth, which is this tiny amount of pre-colonial woodland left behind.

Biden’s efforts to save mature trees are not getting enough Forest Service support, according to some conservationistsThey are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife. Continue reading...

They are the ancient giants of America – towering trunks of sequoias or beech or ash that started to sprout in some cases before the age of the Roman empire, with the few survivors of a frenzy of settler logging now appreciated as crucial allies in an era of climate and biodiversity crises.

Joe Biden has vowed to protect these “cherished” remnants of old growth forest, as well as the next generation of mature forests, directing his government to draw up new plans to conserve the ecological powerhouses that enable US forests to soak up about 10% of the country’s carbon emissions, as well as provide a vital crucible for clean water and wildlife.

Little Rock Pond Shelter in Green Mountain national forest, Vermont. Photograph: Leon Werdinger/Alamy

Yet, the US Forest Service has not included mature trees in this new plan, which also includes loopholes conservationists say allow ongoing felling of trees that are hundreds of years old. The Forest Service, responsible for 154 national forests and nearly 25m acres (10m hectares) of old growth trees in the US, has also largely declined to conduct required reviews of multiple logging projects amid a stampede of tree cutting that threatens the oldest, richest trees before any new curtailments are imposed.

“The largest logging projects I’ve ever seen are targeting the last, best remaining old growth trees left in the country,” said Chad Hanson, a forest ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project.

Hanson said the Forest Service had failed to properly follow the president’s directive, instead allowing logging that imperils the remaining trove of the US’s long-lived, untouched trees.

“We have a rogue agency in the Forest Service that is trying to benefit the logging industry before reforms take place,” he said. “The situation is rampant as far as I can tell and it risks squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect these incredible forests.”

The Forest Service – which has defended its approach – approved 31 logging projects covering 116,460 acres of old growth forests just between December and April, a recent agency report states. A further 18 planned cutting projects within old growth forests are being considered.

In all, dozens of major logging projects are being advanced across the US, including the felling of 130,000 acres of old growth forest, an area roughly equivalent to the size of Chicago, in Plumas national forest in California; a plan to cut 95,000 acres in the Yaak River Valley in Montana that contains 600-year-old larch trees; and a program called the Telephone Gap project that aims to hack away a portion of ancient forest in Vermont that is 90% old growth and mature trees.

Many of these plans have been granted approval since Biden’s executive order in April 2022 that demanded his agencies take action to protect the most storied, grandest trees in the US. The overall amount of logging in national forests has surged 24% during Biden’s term, despite him committing, along with 144 other world leaders, to reverse deforestation by 2030.

The Forest Service has rejected the suggestion that it is allowing the timber industry to plunder older trees, pointing to reduced cutting rates compared with previous decades and a service policy to “protect, maintain and improve old growth forest conditions”. It also defended its policy on reviewing, saying all projects that fell under the scope of the mature and old growth requirement were looked at.

Critics, though, see an agency pushing through a rush of logging before outdated practices are overturned. “It’s insane, there’s just no justification for this,” said Hanson, who is part of a legal effort to prevent logging amid giant sequoias, a project ostensibly to protect a species that only grows in a 60-mile band along California’s Sierra Nevada. “Why would we log giant sequoias of any size? It’s just crazy.”

A red sequoia tree reaches for the sky alongside other trees. Photograph: Edu Borja/Getty Images

In response, environmentalists have launched legal action to stymie logging from New Hampshire to California, while tree-sitting protesters have occupied targeted woodland in Oregon. Scores of scientists have written to Biden warning that the outgoing president’s climate legacy is at risk and lamenting that “we have lost too many of those living witnesses of the past.” The “timber wars”, a fierce 1970s struggle over the future of forests that helped preserve the last fragments of old growth, appear to be rekindling, 50 years on.

“If the Biden administration wants this process to be something more than a greenwashing exercise, then it must put stronger pressure on the Forest Service,” said Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, a Vermont conservation group. “Biden needs to intervene to live up to his climate goals, because at the moment this process is going off the rails.”

There are trees standing in America far older than the country itself. Perhaps the most famous of these, the gargantuan giant sequoias of California, can surpass the grizzled age of 3,000 years as they grow to a towering 300ft tall and slowly layer a bulk of several hundred tons, making them one of the oldest, as well as largest, organisms on Earth.

A bristlecone pine, also in California, is thought to be even more ancient, clocking in at around 4,800 years old. Other species in the US range in the hundreds of years old, having survived in plunging ravines or remote mountaintops from the ravages of axe and chainsaw.

Such timeworn trees were long seen as worthless. “They were viewed as old and decrepit and valuable for logging, not much else,” said Jim Furnish, a former deputy chief of the Forest Service, which was established in 1905 and has long had strong ties to the timber industry.

“If you cut down the older trees, you then get younger forests that can provide timber quickly,” Furnish said. “That was the rationale, which has left us with very little old growth.”

In recent decades, however, scientists have amassed evidence that older trees are treasure troves of life. They draw up and then expel moisture into the surrounding air like a sort of biotic pump, essentially creating their own weather systems, filtering water (national forests provide a fifth of the US’s clean water supply) and offering homes in craggy hollows to a panoply of wildlife.

As they grow, the trees’ bark thickens, making them and the surrounding forest more resistant to fire. A network of fungi helps spread a bounty of water and nutrients to the forest community. When these trees, having mopped up huge doses of carbon dioxide, eventually die, the toppled trunks regenerate soil, nourishing trees and animals around them.

“Their value is just off the charts,” said Dominick DellaSala, a veteran forest researcher. “You cut down a tree like that and you destroy habitat and lose 80% of that stored carbon into the atmosphere, more carbon than is lost from a fire. There’s just no reason to do it.”

A rethink on old growth followed a bitter battle over the imperiled northern spotted owl in the Pacific north-west, with millions of acres of the bird’s favored aged forest habitat ultimately set aside from cutting in 1994. The Forest Service points to a nationwide decline in logging since this time, with the agency considering wildfires, insect infestations and the climate crisis to now be the greatest threats to US forests.

Still, there has been an uptick in logging since Biden became president in 2021, with the Forest Service removing 2.94bn board ft (7.27m cubic metres)of timber from national forests last year, enough to fill more than 1.25m logging trucks, according to advocacy group calculations on agency data. The Forest Service still works towards “timber targets” that, it recently told Congress, it could increase with more resources and speedier environmental reviews.

The agency has a deep-rooted mindset of muscular “management” of forests rather than just letting them grow, according to DellaSala. “They will always argue for chainsaws and bulldozers, no matter what the issue is,” he said. There is plenty that could still be cut, too – just a quarter of the 112m acres of old growth and mature forests on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land is protected, DellaSala’s research has calculated.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Forests had long been selectively cut or burned by Native Americans but the arrival of European settlers kickstarted the widespread razing of trees for timber and farmland, to the extent that a mere 5% of original forest, scattered in small patches of trees, is left across the country. In the eastern US, barely 1% remains.

The Biden effort to stem losses of old growth trees, therefore, ignited optimism that a major turning point had arrived. “We have lost so much, there is such a deficit that we are recovering from,” said Sarah Adloo, executive director of the Old Growth Forest Network. “So just hearing the words ‘old growth’ from the president’s mouth was really wonderful.”

Biden ordered the Forest Service and the BLM, which collectively manage forests spanning about 250m acres, an estate about double the size of Spain, to conduct the first inventories of remaining old growth and mature forest and set about updating individual forest plans to curb their loss. “These forests are an essential partner in tackling climate change,” insisted Ali Zaidi, a senior White House climate adviser.

The timber industry, long used to procuring valuable wood from some of the largest, and therefore usually oldest, trees on public land, reacted with dismay. “We are extremely concerned about the disruption this unprecedented approach will have on urgently needed management efforts,” said Bill Imbergamo, head of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, an industry group, citing the imperative, disputed by many scientists outside industry or government, to actively cut or “thin” forests to prevent insect outbreaks, or to reduce wildfire risk.

But environmentalists also saw flaws. There is no universal definition of old growth – some scientists class it as trees that have reached about 120 years in age – but there is agreement that mature trees, of about 80 years in age, must be protected to ensure more old growth in the future. The Forest Service plan, presented in December and recently updated with a draft environmental assessment, does not include mature trees, however, despite them covering more than double the area, about 68m acres, of old growth, according to the agency’s inventory of its managed land.

“If you allow mature trees to be cut, you get no additional old growth,” Porter said. The Forest Service plan, which is on track to be finalized in January, also allows the felling of old growth trees for purported environmental reasons, which could be used to justify further logging that many scientists say actually worsens fire and pests.

“It’s clear to me that the Forest Service is intent on promoting a new era of destructive commercial logging in old growth forests on public lands, while trying to deceptively spin it as wildfire management, forest health and community protection,” said Hanson. “Why isn’t President Biden telling the Forest Service no, and insisting that mature and old growth forests be fully protected from logging, as hundreds of scientists have urged?”

In December, Chris French, the deputy head of the Forest Service, did send an agency-wide memo requiring all logging projects that include old growth forests to be reviewed and approved by service leadership before proceeding.

However, when the Guardian asked the Forest Service about the status of 29 contentious logging projects across the US, the agency confirmed only five had been reviewed, with many rejected for assessment because of a supposed lack of old growth, or because the projects had started before the memo, even though such a constraint was not stipulated in the original edict.

A Forest Service spokesperson said mature forests were not included in the plan because climate change “introduces a lot of uncertainty” as to where older forests can survive. “The goal is not to manage all mature forest as future old-growth forest,” he said. “In some cases, places that are currently forests will no longer be forests. In others, the plants and animals will change dramatically. So, a strict preservation approach might not work.”

The spokesperson added that the service was “clearly harvesting much less timber” than it was in the period up to around 1990, when policies started to shift towards ecological needs and logging focused more on younger, plantation-based, trees.

He also denied that reviews of old growth logging projects were being overlooked by service leadership, or sidestepped by local forest managers. “All projects that fall within the scope of the mature and old growth requirement are reviewed,” the spokesperson said. “Forest projects are reviewed by both the regional and national offices, so it is unlikely that forests could ignore the direction.”

On a recent, steamy late-spring day, Porter led a small group through a section of the Green Mountain national forest, a 400,000-acre slice of rich northern hardwood forest in Vermont, a rare splash of older trees in a region denuded of original forest. Black bears, moose and beavers are found in this place, which has a touch of the prehistoric about it, with its gurgling streams, ferns and moss-covered boulders.

“These are big, big trees for the eastern US, there’s nothing much like this left,” said John Roe, a retired forest ecologist, as he surveyed the soaring stands of maple, ash and birch. “This sort of forest is of global importance.” The trees have rebounded since the US civil war era, when farmers abandoned the area. Give these trees another 160 years, Roe said, and you will see the sort of complex, intact forest there was before European arrival.

Many of these trees won’t get the chance to do so – the Forest Service is considering a logging program, called Telephone Gap, that will hew about 12,000 acres, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan, containing mostly mature trees with some old growth. “My worry is we foolishly sacrifice more than a century of recovery here,” said Porter.

If you trudge deeper into the heart of this national forest you get to a lake called the North Pond, an idyllic spot favored by beavers and fringed by slopes of trees, many that have never been cleaved. Clamber over some rocks and slippery moss into these stands and you can find sentinels that have stood amid this scene for timescales that leave the modern world behind.

Roe holds a tape measure to the bark of a grand yellow birch – 39in in diameter, probably 300 or so years old. A tree that was overlooking this lake, passing the seasons, before George Washington was born. “This is a monster,” Roe said, gawping up at the tree.

In March, Porter got an email from the district ranger overseeing the planned logging project, stating that there was “no need” for the plan to be sent to Forest Service leadership for a review as it would not disturb what the forest managers define to be true old growth, which is this tiny amount of pre-colonial woodland left behind.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Major NJ Wildfire Shows Unexpected Urban Areas Are at Risk

A forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areas

Why New Jersey Is Actually a Place with Major Wildfire RiskA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areasBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerFirefighters try to extinguish a fast-moving brush fire along on November 19, 2024 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey yesterday morning was spurred by winds and dry weather, fulfilling a prediction by state officials that the state would see an active fire season this spring.The Jones Road Fire has burned 12,000 acres, more than the average area burned by wildfires in the state in an entire year. A drought warning has been in effect in New Jersey since November 2024, which means that many drought status indicators, such as current drinking water supplies, are below normal. And after a busy fall fire season, spring kicked off with an above-average number of fires as well. The Jones Road Fire, which forced evacuations in Ocean County, New Jersey, threatened hundreds of homes and businesses in a populated area.How Did the New Jersey Fire Spread?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.State fire officials have not yet determined the cause of the fire, but it grew in dry, windy conditions. The blaze started at the edge of the Pinelands, a region of pine forests known for its wildfire risk. In fact, the Pinelands’ landscape has been shaped by fire—if it didn’t regularly burn, the ecosystem would transition into an oak forest, says David Robinson, New Jersey’s state climatologist and a professor at Rutgers University.“Traditionally, spring is fire season down in the Pinelands, so as far as seasonal timing to this fire, there’s nothing unusual,” Robinson says. “The fact that [the fire] spread so quickly may be a testament to the fact that it hasn’t rained in over 10 days.”Because of New Jersey’s population density, the state experiences a lot of what research ecologist Michael Gallagher of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Research Station calls “interface fires,” which are fires that start where human habitation bumps up against wildland. “Fires as small as an acre frequently threaten homes,” Gallagher says.But the Jones Road fire moved quickly into an exurb-type environment with numerous buildings in its path. Wind-borne embers sped the fire along, starting spot fires that ignited new blazes, Gallagher says. His research has shown that in the spring, the sun tends to heat the south side of pine trees in the forests of the Pinelands, causing the bark to dry and curl. These curls ignite easily in a fire. Winds blowing from the north are then well poised to catch these tiny flaming brands, blowing them ahead of the main fire.How Did New Jersey’s Drought Worsen Fire Conditions?October 2024 was the driest month in the state in 130 years, Robinson says. Though fires generally peak in spring in New Jersey, it saw a busy fire season in the fall, as did much of the Northeast.Winter brought some relief. This year, however, New Jersey’s fire season, which typically starts in March, began in earnest in January, state officials said in a March 3 news conference. Between January 1 and March 3, the state saw 214 fires burn through 514 acres, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reported. In comparison, 69 fires burned 21 acres during the same period in 2024.“We’re continuing just where we left off last year,” said state fire chief Bill Donnelly in the briefing.Precipitation improved somewhat in March and April, Robinson says, but it hasn’t recovered to the point that the state is out of the drought. “The news is all kind of good, but we still have to remember we are in a drought warning,” he says. And while the overall trend has been toward more moisture, the Pinelands area had been going through a mini dry spell before the fire began, with almost two weeks without rain, he says. The sandy soil and pine needles in the regions don’t hold on to water for long.“This area dries out very quickly,” Robinson says.That means the weather was ripe for fire, and wind gusts of up to 25 miles per hour quickly whipped the fire toward inhabited areas.“Last night [the fire] was on the eastern end of the Pinelands, near the [Garden State] Parkway, and it hopped the Parkway and headed toward the coast in a populated area. So [this was] a real worrisome situation,” Robinson says.How Will Climate Change Affect New Jersey’s Fire Risk?Wildfires are aggressively managed in New Jersey, with prescribed burns to reduce fuel and quick suppression when fires do ignite, Robinson says. These evolving actions should tamp down any climate-change-related increase in risk and make it difficult to compare the state’s fire outlook with a preindustrial “normal.” New Jersey has a history of large fires, including a multiple-fire outbreak in 1963 known as Black Saturday, which burned 183,000 acres and killed seven people.Long-term projections suggest the state will get a little wetter in a warming world, though rain is not expected to become more frequent, but rather will likely be heavier when it does fall. Warming temperatures could nudge the state’s fire risk a little bit higher as fuels dry out faster, however.“Things become volatile pretty quickly,” Robinson says.

A Sequoia Forest in Detroit? Plantings to Improve Air Quality and Mark Earth Day

Arborists are hoping to transform vacant land on Detroit’s eastside by planting giant sequoias, the world’s largest trees

DETROIT (AP) — Arborists are turning vacant land on Detroit's eastside into a small urban forest, not of elms, oaks and red maples indigenous to the city but giant sequoias, the world's largest trees that can live for thousands of years.The project on four lots will not only replace long-standing blight with majestic trees, but could also improve air quality and help preserve the trees that are native to California’s Sierra Nevada, where they are threatened by ever-hotter wildfires.Detroit is the pilot city for the Giant Sequoia Filter Forest. The nonprofit Archangel Ancient Tree Archive is donating dozens of sequoia saplings that will be planted by staff and volunteers from Arboretum Detroit, another nonprofit, to mark Earth Day on April 22.Co-founder David Milarch says Archangel also plans to plant sequoias in Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and London. The massive conifers can grow to more than 300 feet (90 meters) tall with a more than 30-foot (9-meter) circumference at the base. They can live for more than 3,000 years.“Here’s a tree that is bigger than your house when it’s mature, taller than your buildings, and lives longer than you can comprehend,” said Andrew “Birch” Kemp, Arboretum Detroit's executive director.The sequoias will eventually provide a full canopy that protects everything beneath, he said.“It may be sad to call these .5- and 1-acre treescapes forests,” Kemp said. “We are expanding on this and shading our neighborhood in the only way possible, planting lots of trees.”Giant sequoias are resilient against disease and insects, and are usually well-adapted to fire. Thick bark protects their trunks and their canopies tend to be too high for flames to reach. But climate change is making the big trees more vulnerable to wildfires out West, Kemp said.“The fires are getting so hot that its even threatening them,” he said. Descendants of Stagg and Waterfall Archangel, based in Copemish, Michigan, preserves the genetics of old-growth trees for research and reforestation. The sequoia saplings destined for Detroit are clones of two giants known as Stagg — the world's fifth-largest tree — and Waterfall, of the Alder Creek grove, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) north of Los Angeles.In 2010, Archangel began gathering cones and climbers scaled high into the trees to gather new-growth clippings from which they were able to develop and grow saplings.Sequoias need space, and metropolitan Detroit has plenty of it.In the 1950s, 1.8 million people called Detroit home, but the city's population has since shrunk to about one-third of that number. Tens of thousands of homes were left empty and neglected.“There’s not another urban area I know of that has the kind of potential that we do to reforest," he said. “We could all live in shady, fresh air beauty. It's like no reason we can’t be the greenest city in the world.”Within the last decade, 11 sequoias were planted on vacant lots owned by Arboretum Detroit and nine others were planted on private properties around the neighborhood. Each now reaches 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.5 meters) tall. Arboretum Detroit has another 200 in its nursery. Kemp believes the trees will thrive in Detroit.“They’re safer here ... we don’t have wildfires like (California). The soil stays pretty moist, even in the summer,” he said. “They like to have that winter irrigation, so when the snow melts they can get a good drink.” How will the sequoias impact Detroit? Caring for the sequoias will fall to future generations, so Milarch has instigated what he calls “tree school” to teach Detroit’s youth how and why to look after the new trees.“We empower our kids to teach them how to do this and give them the materials and the way to do this themselves,” Milarch said. “They take ownership. They grow them in the classrooms and plant them around the schools. They know we’re in environmental trouble.”Some of them may never have even walked in a forest, Kemp said.“How can we expect children who have never seen a forest to care about deforestation on the other side of the world?" Kemp said. "It is our responsibility to offer them their birthright.”City residents are exposed to extreme air pollution and have high rates of asthma. The Detroit sequoias will grow near a heavily industrial area, a former incinerator and two interstates, he said.Kemp’s nonprofit has already planted about 650 trees — comprising around 80 species — in some 40 lots in the area. But he believes the sequoias will have the greatest impact.“Because these trees grow so fast, so large and they’re evergreen they’ll do amazing work filtering the air here,” Kemp said. “We live in pretty much a pollution hot spot. We’re trying to combat that. We’re trying to breathe clean air. We’re trying to create shade. We’re trying to soak up the stormwater, and I think sequoias — among all the trees we plant — may be the strongest, best candidates for that.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Banned DDT discovered in Canadian trout 70 years after use, research finds

Potential danger to humans and wildlife from harmful pesticide discovered in fish at 10 times safety limitResidues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife. Continue reading...

Residues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife.“DDT is a probable carcinogen that we haven’t used in 70 years here [Canada], yet it’s abundant in fish and lake mud throughout much of the province at shockingly high levels,” said Josh Kurek, an associate professor in environmental change and aquatic biomonitoring at Mount Allison University in Canada and lead author of the research.The research, published in the journal Plos One, discovered that DDT pollution covers about 50% of New Brunswick province. Brook trout is the most common wild fish caught in the region, and the research found DDT was present in its muscle tissue, in some cases 10 times above the recommended Canadian wildlife guidelines.Researchers said DDT, which is classified by health authorities as a“probable carcinogen”, can persist in lake mud for decades after treatment and that many lakes in New Brunswick retain such high levels of legacy DDT that the sediments are a key source of pollution in the food web.“The public, especially vulnerable populations to contaminants such as women of reproductive age and children, need to be aware of exposure risk to legacy DDT through consumption of wild fish,” said Kurek.Throughout the 1950s and 60s, half the province’s conifer forests were sprayed with DDT, a synthetic insecticide used to control insects carrying diseases such as malaria and typhus. Canada banned the use of the substance in the 1980s.The 2001 Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants banned DDT worldwide for mass agricultural use, although it is still permitted in small quantities for malaria control.“This mess can’t be cleaned up,” said Kurek. “DDTs can persist in lake mud for decades to centuries and then cycle in the food web. The best approach is to manage the public’s exposure of legacy DDTs by encouraging everyone to follow fish consumption guidelines and consider reducing exposure.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Our findings are a clear wake-up call to abandon our overreliance on synthetic chemicals. Lessons need to be learned so we don’t repeat past mistakes. Our study hopefully informs on other contaminants that we apply broadly today, such as road salt and herbicides like glyphosate. We absolutely need to do things differently or our ecosystems will continue to face a lifetime of pollution.”

Portland City Council moves to reject controversial PGE Forest Park transmission project

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a PGE transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park.

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a Portland General Electric transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park. The decision Thursday night – described as “tentative” until a final vote on May 7 – came after councilors considered appeals by the Forest Park Conservancy and Forest Park Neighborhood Association to overturn a city of Portland hearings officer approval in March of PGE’s proposal. The vote followed five hours of presentations and public testimony and directs city attorneys to write an ordinance to grant the appeals and overturn the hearings officer’s decision. PGE can appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. PGE wants to rewire a 1970s transmission line and add a second line in the utility’s existing right-of-way and said the upgrade will address an increase in the region’s energy demand and prevent rolling blackouts in North and Northwest Portland. A report from Portland’s Permitting and Development Office in January recommended that the hearings officer turn down PGE’s project due to non-compliance with environmental standards and the city’s Forest Park management plan. But hearings officer Marisha Childs last month went against those recommendations, agreeing with PGE about the need for the project and finding that routing through Forest Park “is the least environmentally detrimental option” of all the alternatives PGE analyzed. The two groups that filed the appeals said PGE failed to meet city approval criteria and that project would set a precedent for further development in the park. PGE’s proposal had touched off a months-long clash between the utility and opponents who seek to protect the trees in the 5,200-acre park because they provide valuable habitat for countless wildlife species and climate benefits to all city residents. More than 3,000 people filed testimony about the project, including over 1,000 who sent in comments ahead of the appeals hearing, with the vast majority against the upgrade. Several hundred protesters gathered at City Hall before the hearing. They held cardboard cutouts of trees, animals and insects and signs that read “Save Forest Park,” “No more ecocide” and “You have to be nuts to destroy Forest Park.” A protester at Portland City Hall holds a sign opposing PGE's transmission upgrade project in Forest Park ahead of a City Council appeals hearing. Beth Nakamura“It’s important to have more energy transmission infrastructure, power lines and responsive grids, yet this is one of the situations where it is very clear there is no ambiguity. PGE can build this project elsewhere in order to keep the lights on,” Damon Motz-Storey, the Sierra Club Oregon chapter’s director, told the crowd. “These trees have been standing since before we even had electricity in homes.”Motz-Storey then led the rally in a chant: “Listen to the people and the trees, not PGE.” Protesters and park advocates filled the council chambers and two overflow rooms, testifying one after another that the PGE project runs counter to the city’s plan to sustain an old-growth forest in Forest Park and asking for the council to save the trees and protect the park. Protesters at Portland City Hall listen as the City Council considers the appeals on PGE's controversial Forest Park transmission project. Beth Nakamura“This project is unacceptable to us and the community and the critters and plants that depend on us to say no to cutting trees, building roads, bulldozing, filling in wetlands and streams and saying this is good for climate resilience,” said Scott Fogarty, executive director with Forest Park Conservancy, the group that filed one of the appeals. The conservancy formed to maintain trails and restore native habitat in the park. Fogarty said PGE’s proposed plan to offset losses from the upgrade does not address cutting down 100-year-old trees and the benefits they bring. The mitigation proposal includes planting Oregon white oak seedlings near the project area, seeding the transmission corridor and access road edges with a pollinator-friendly native seed mix and paying a fee to the city to remove invasive species in the park. He also said the upgrade would pave the way for city approval of future phases of the project in Forest Park and lead to more tree removal. PGE has said those future phases could affect another 15 acres of the park. “Is 5 acres acceptable? Is 20 acres acceptable? Where do we draw the line?” Fogarty asked the council members. “One could argue losing just one 100-year-old tree is unacceptable, let alone 5 acres. In the age of climate resilience, this project flies in the face of retaining carbon suckers in a region that is seeing increased impacts from climate change, including potential fire danger.” PGE argued before the council that the project area is neither old nor ancient forest and that the maintenance of existing transmission lines is key to preserving blackout-free electricity. A proposal by Portland General Electric to cut more than 370 trees in Forest Park to upgrade transmission lines has spurred opposition. The utility and renewable energy proponents say the upgrades are needed to address transmission bottlenecks and fulfill state clean energy mandates.courtesy of Portland General Electric“Alleviating this choke point is important because our experts predict that as early as 2028 there is the risk of outages during times of peak demand,” said Randy Franks, a senior project manager for PGE. “Think about the hottest part of the day, during an ongoing heat wave, with no fans and no air conditioning.”Franks said the more than 20 alternatives PGE examined were not practical, would require the utility to take property through eminent domain, would take too much time or cost too much – and could lead to similar or even greater negative impacts to trees and wildlife outside the park. He said the city’s Forest Park management plan acknowledges the existence of utility corridors and the need to maintain and upgrade them over time and that doing so will help reduce global warming.“If we are serious about combating climate change, we simply have to improve the grid, keep it reliable and increase transmission capacity,” Franks said. Only a handful of people testified in favor of PGE’s plans. “Utilities around the country, including ours, are facing the most rapid load increases in a generation and concomitant reliability challenges. At the same time, our state is laboring to remove from the grid the coal and gas plants that are fueling climate change locally,” said Angus Duncan, the former chair of the Northwest Conservation and Power Planning Council, a group tasked with developing and maintaining a regional power plan. “We need to rebuild the power system to exclude fossil generation.” Council members Angelita Morillo and Steve Novick questioned the assertion that PGE’s proposal would help combat climate change. Novick also asked why PGE did not provide more evidence as to why the transmission upgrades are needed by 2028, not at a later date. Other councilors said they did not feel PGE had proved an alternative outside the park was unfeasible and did not present a compelling mitigation plan. And most of the 12 council members said they disagreed with PGE and the hearings officer that the proposal meets the parameters of the park’s management plan. “Ultimately, I think what has been proposed is probably the best option in the park,” said Councilor Eric Zimmerman. But, he said, nothing in PGE’s proposal showed that the council should overrule the Forest Park management plan. “I don’t think the standard has been met to not follow that plan,” Zimmerman said.Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney agreed. “If an alternative (to the project) exists, we should not be granting an exception,” she said. Councilor Dan Ryan said the decision will likely be one of many to pit the needs for clean electricity against those of protecting the environment. “Portland will be having more and more tough decisions that include extremely difficult trade-offs. This is just where we are in managing the climate crisis,” Ryan said. “I think PGE worked really hard to find the best option and yet we all want a different option.” That’s because, he added, he – like other Portlanders – loves the park and its trees. “Forest Park is a cathedral,” Ryan said. “And maybe it’s Holy Week and I’m just treating this in a very spiritual way, but it’s just really difficult for me to think I could take a vote that would on the appearance be about deforesting Forest Park during this sacred week.” — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.