Old-growth forests play a critical and often overlooked role in maintaining the health of our national parks. They support wildlife, improve water quality, mitigate climate change by holding vast amounts of carbon and help protect larger ecosystems. As the climate crisis is threatening our national parks, which warm at twice the rate of the rest of the country, old-growth forests are increasingly important to the health of our national parks.
The Forest Service is proposing historic protections for old-growth forests by keeping the oldest trees standing rather than cutting them down. Urge them to protect the remaining large trees, as they provide a home for wildlife, are resilient to wildfire, and protect drinking water for millions of people.
As a national park advocate, I support the Forest Service's vision to protect old-growth forests.
Seventy-six national parks are adjacent to lands managed by the Forest Service, so what happens on those lands impacts parks. Protecting old-growth forests just outside of park landscapes helps our parks become more resilient in the face of climate change, helps protect vital water sources for millions of people, and helps protect habitat for species that move in and out of park boundaries.
I would, however, like to see the rule strengthened in a few key ways:
The amendment needs to extend substantially similar protections to forests identified as potential future old-growth in the Adaptative Strategy for Old Growth Forest Conservation as are provided to the forests already identified as old-growth.
Standard 1, which was included in the previous Notice of Intent, has been omitted and must be restored to achieve the goals of making our forests more resilient to wildfire while also ensuring they are ecologically intact. This standard will ensure that management practices that degrade old-growth quality are explicitly prohibited.
A one-size-fits-all approach cannot necessarily encompass the diversity of all forest needs. For example, proactive stewardship is not always the answer and sometimes, in moist forests, passive stewardship is a more responsible model. We urge the final plan to consider passive stewardship as an option in addition to proactive management.
Thank you,
[your name]
