A few months ago I posted about the ongoing and informal National Wildfire Institute (NWI) and its current efforts in context to its past history: https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/10/02/burned-out-us-forest-service-is-destroying-our-western-towns/
One of these efforts is the “National Wildfire Emergency” project envisioned and spearheaded by Lake Tahoe writer, Dana Tibbitts, whose current and former homes have been subjected to evacuations, wildfire threats, and deadly smoke pollution several times in the current and recent years.
A cornerstone to this effort has been three recorded Zoom meetings with 16 prepared statements by 14 participants — including a dozen national and regional experts on wildfire management and forest restoration. I have been working with Dana and Nadine Bailey and Luke Van Mol by developing transcriptions of the various statements in order to better document these events and contribute to the video editing process.
One of the experts contributing to this project is Phil Aune. His statements are very much in accordance with recent discussions on this blog regarding the abrupt departure from proven reforestation methods and research by the US Forest Service and others in the 1980s:
********************************
My name is Phil Aune. I have a 50-year career in the forestry arena — 37 years with the U.S. Forest Service, and with my last assignment as 13 years as a research program manager. After that I served six years as Vice-President of the California Forestry Association, and since I flunked retirement after we moved to Spokane, Washington, I went to work as a consultant for the American Forest Resource Council.
We’ve lived in Spokane, Washington for the last 20 years, but I constantly go back to California [to] see my grandchildren, and on the way I usually take time to look at some of the wildfires. It’s easy to see — they’re everywhere.
I’m also on the Board of Directors of the Evergreen Foundation, that’s Jim’s [Petersen] foundation, and I’m also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Museum of Forest Service History.
What I’m here to talk about today is what I call “the legacy.” The legacy of wildfires. And I’m primarily talking about Oregon, Washington, and California, where I have some experience. I also see it in Idaho and Montana, in my travels around those States.
The first point I see is the vast majority of the dead trees are not being salvaged. The first legacy that we’re going to see is thousands and thousands of acres of black, standing trees, as long as they’re standing for the next 20 to 30 years.
Meanwhile, trees will ultimately die and fall to the ground and become fuel for the inevitable next wildfire, making it even more difficult to control and, more importantly, all that fuel will now be on the surface, and that surface fuels will concentrate the heat on the upper end of the soil profile, severely damaging the soil.
So it’s a long-term productivity effect that no one has really researched extensively — to follow up exactly what’s happening to these wildfires, especially the reburns that have occurred in wildfire areas.
Very little of the ground in the legacy is being reforested, and we’re developing a huge reforestation backlog. Keep in mind that in 1976, in a National Forest Management Act portion, Congress dictated us — to the Forest Service — to develop the reforestation background.
And here’s what the National Forest Management Act said, in Section 4 (d)(1): “It is the policy of Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest system shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover . . .”
“Shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover!” Where in the heck is that going on?
“. . . with the species of tree, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stands designated to secure the maximum benefits for multiple use and stained yield concepts in the land management, according to the land management plans.”
So why aren’t they reforesting these lands? That’s a big question.
Congress even developed the funding mechanism necessary to reforest all the lands in the backlog. It was called R and I Fund: “Reforestation and Stand Improvement.” The money came from offshore oil receipts. It wasn’t even a problem in getting the funds — and if we start looking at our resources in total, we can expand our oil production, expand our revenues from that. It all works together to making life easier for everyone.
The real reforestation backlog that was declared in 1976 has grown substantially. And if you look at the last 20 years, that’s where the bulk of the backlog is growing.
Well, what’s going to happen to all of these lands?
The lands that are not actively reforested will change into brush and hardwood communities for the next 75 to 100 years. Yes, they will naturally regenerate, but how much time do you have? How much time do our children have?How much time do our grandchildren, our great grandchildren? This is a real issue. We’re leaving black forest and brush fields in what once was magnificent conifer forest . . . that’s the condition that our grandchildren will receive.
Next point I’d like to make is we don’t have to do that. We have the knowledge and skills from science-based reforestation. And I can speak personally from that, as a research program manager whose mission was to look at the entire reforestation cycle for the last . . . 13 years of my career — plus the practical experience I had during the time Iwas in active management.
The Forest Service has this background, and it includes the following necessary steps:
Collection and storage of the seeds — the cones and the seeds that we’re going to need to reforest the land. It’s a no-brainer. We have to establish nurseries to grow these seedlings. We don’t have to have bare-root nurseries. We can go with container nurseries. But the Forest Service has to start expanding if they’re ever going to get back on top of thereforestation backlog.
Here’s probably the most critical point: you need prompt salvage of the wildfires. Roger [Jaegel] spoke about that at length. That what’s happening — if you don’t salvage them, those trees are still going to be there, and they’re fuel. And then, from a common-sense point of view: does it make sense to cut green trees when you got thousands and thousands of dead trees to cut that are still utilizable?
We need to do proper site preparation. We’ve got to have planting crews available. It’s a temporary work job, and we definitely need to provide for common-sense planting crews and have that workforce available.
The biggest point we have to do is prepare to reduce plant competition after planting because, as we live in most of the California, Oregon, and Washington, in the dry Mediterranean type of environments, the seedlings have to survive with the moisture that’s left in the soil, and unless you control the grass and the brush — competing plants — all of your planting efforts will be for nil, as many, many of the trees die. I’ve investigated thousands of acres of dead seedlings, and the biggest factor that you find after planting, and you go look at why they die, is we didn’t control plant competition.
Reforestation is a commitment to all of these processes — and just as much as not reforesting is a commitment to understanding and recognizing that it’s going to take centuries for all these forests to eventually regenerate naturally.
Joe [Reddan] mentioned the Organic Act of 1897. When Congress [passed the Act, it had as] one of the key purposes to provide for the protection and maintenance of our National Forests [ . . .]. How can we look the public in the eye and say: “we are providing for the protection and maintenance?”
The second major factor was: protect the headwaters of navigable streams. Where, on God’s Green Earth, have theyever protected the headwaters of navigable streams with using concepts like “managing wildfires for resourcebenefits,” which is just a euphemism for not fighting fires promptly.
The last one was that they — after they provide the protection and maintenance — the third purpose was to provide for continuous supply of timber for the citizens of the United States. Good luck on that one! Thank you very much.
Phil! Thanks for your passionate defense of what used to be common sense forestry, you know, like Gifford P. fought for to bring Grey Towers’ forestlands back from the dead. We have a narrow window of time and circumstances to make real changes in the Force and the Service. My Dad and I served more or less continuously from 1947 at Winslow on the A-S until 2012 at Custer in the Black Hills. I’ve been through three dendroctonus ponderosae hundred year events. I was fighting fire day and night (before the woods got too steep, too rough) from 1972 to 1997 across the 11 Western States; there when a 5,000-acre project fire was a (H)UGE, massive, 10-day event; and there when firefighters lit 60 percent of the million acre Dixie Fire on purpose. The scope and scale of intentional wildfire use and neglect is unimaginable. The miles and miles of burned over forests, scoured out riparian habitat, and lost public peace of mind and public trust are approaching what I believe the Japanese hoped to achieve with a submarine-launched, incendiary, terror campaign in 1942. It’s somehow baffling that we are still battling powers greater (or at least more persistent) than ourselves more than 50 years after we first learned to find the on-switch on a Pulaski and mastered the left-handed ladies shovel. Yet, here we are. The New America First order represents potential change by degrees, not wholesale revolution. We’ll be lucky to get a few things done. Reestablishing living forests is a worthwhile effort.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, which are well reasoned.
I especially like a couple of your final thoughts.
First, protecting headwaters areas with forested landscapes is a highlight worthy goal.
Secondly, “a continuous supply of timber for the American people”. I believe that ALL raw, unprocessed resources extracted from PUPLIC LANDS and PUBLIC MINERAL RIGHTS AREAS should be solely for the benefit of Americans- NO EXPORTING of timber, oil, gas, coal, minerals. These lands belong to the people, and should benefit the people
What Mr. Aune has accurately described is time-tested forest management that assures our
country will maintain the forest cover that the public desires while providing a sustainable
supply of forest products for society. Unfortunately, management of our federal lands does not necessarily follow Mr. Aune’s straight forward approach to long-term forest management.
Brian Rueger
California
I believe there should be more salvage and a lot more reforestation. There are, however, a number of obstacles involved. Regarding salvage, depending on the species there is a short window where these fire-killed trees are still viable for lumber. Ponderosa pine doesn’t last that long. Lodgepole pine can stay viable for years. A factor in the timeframe is the completion of NEPA. You also need to have the resources and infrastructure available to conduct large-scale salvage operations.
I believe the fire risk from fire-killed trees may be overblown. Once the trees fall over, they can certainly play a role in a subsequent wildfire, but the 1,000-hour fuel moistures have to be very low for there to be a significant impact. Typically, the fire front passes through, fueled by the 1 through 100-hour fuels, and the 1,000-hour fuels may be consumed over some period of time after that. We have done prescribed burns in old burn areas and after the burn is completed, there are those old, down logs just the same as before. There also is some value in leaving some coarse woody debris in a burn area.
Regarding planting large acres, there are also obstacles. Here in the Black Hills, if we are lucky, we have about a month-long window for planting. You really have to be geared up to plant a significant amount of acres in a month’s time. Survival is also a factor. We have found that planting south-facing slopes is difficult and may not be worth the investment. You also have to have someone to plant the trees. Just to be blunt, the people who do that are not in good favor with the incoming administration. You also have to have crews available for cone collection contracts that are timed with good cone crops. Not to mention all of the infrastructure such as tree coolers, nurseries, etc. To top it off, the incoming administration wants to reduce the number of federal employees.
Yes, there should be more salvage and planting but there are plenty of obstacles associated with that.
The only thing missing Dave is initiative ! Sure, the issues you stated are concerns but certainly not insurmountable; we went through a very costly learning experience in East-Side Forests in Oregon and Washington in the late 70’s and early 80’s. We learned and became very successful at reforestation.
I know Sharon will add onto our journey then, but we could almost grow ponderosa pine on a fence post, on sites that couldn’t produce 20 cubes/acre/year. As for federal employees, don’t need many; contracting experience still exists on how to do all those things you mention as potential obstacles. As for contractor employees, they are out there, they are green carded (some) but most are hard working Patriots (I’m using this term as a non-political noun) that have taken the journey, either through process or birthright! I know, I live in a Hispanic community about half the year, and have for many years.
As for salvage, the more the better! Let’s set aside the Regionality of where we are talking about, but I saw green log decks incinerate in Arizona! I was with a contractor one day, and three days later there wasn’t anything but ashes! What you say about CWD is true, but not at the expense of future potential burns….
We need to clean out the dead weight, roll up our sleeves and git ‘er done, while there is still time!
Hi Jim, I agree that where there is a will, there is a way. I guess that I was just trying to make the case that there are many issues to resolve if there will indeed be significant increases in both salvage and planting. It cannot just be an edict that comes down saying “You will now do much more than what you have done in the past.” That is no path to success.
For a long time, the FS said “We need a lot of additional funding if you want us to significantly increase the acres treated.” Then, quite unexpectedly, they got more money than they ever imagined. Some good things happened with the extra funding but a lot of it was farmed out to NGO’s with these Keystone Agreements, and we don’t know what happened to it all. If the metric is increased acres treated, then much of that money didn’t result in the desired effect. Throwing money at a problem without solving the underlying issues, is not wise.
Let’s see who the next Chief and Undersecretary will be. Will they be problem solvers or toadies?
Hi Dave: I definitely agree with much of what you say, and particularly in regards to needed salvage and infrastructure. Some of your comments are more specific to the Black Hills than other forested regions in the US, though, or a sad product of the times.
First, when you say “I believe the fire risk from fire-killed trees may be overblown. Once the trees fall over, they can certainly play a role in a subsequent wildfire . . .” is an indication you have never heard of the “Six-Year Jinx” of the Tillamook Fires from 1933 to 1951, or the record of more recent catastrophic-scale wildfires in the Douglas Fir Region. Once a crown fire goes through a stand of water-filled conifers, the resulting snags don’t “fall over” — instead, if they are not salvaged, the thousands of tons of pitch-filled, air-dried firewood that has been created is even more flammable and burns much hotter than the green trees it replaced. So, maybe an “overblown” concern east of the Rockies in some places, but a deadly and growing threat in Douglas fir and lodgepole forests that becomes much worse following the initial wildfire unless corrective steps are taken.
The second point I question is your perception: “You also have to have someone to plant the trees. Just to be blunt, the people who do that are not in good favor with the incoming administration.” You are saying that most tree planting is done by illegal aliens or, at best, legitimate Green Card holders. I planted trees for more than 20 years and I think the “current administration” actually favors hard work and good results. Following WW II, tree planting was done by logging crews, school kids, and local reforestation businesses, such as my own, and results were becoming increasingly better up into the 1980s.
Then, beginning in the early 1980s, southern Oregon migrant contract crews that had been picking pears and other agricultural jobs discovered they could perform short-term, “low-bid” contracts through the winter with the US Forest Service, that was suddenly promoting “diversity” (another topic with a California origin) and soon greatly favored the control and costs associated with work done by people in the US illegally. The USFS was even so accommodating to this new work force (in our public forests) that they even began allowing — and then requiring — agricultural shovels to be used in planting rather than the traditional “hoedags,” that required more skill and strength. Spanish became a necessary job skill, and the reforestation industry largely collapsed and has been mostly replaced with this modern-day slave trade instead.
As Nancy Pelosi said in regards to Governor DeSantis (paraphrased): “He may want to enforce his borders now, but he will change his mind once the crops need picking.” How is this happening in America? If we really wanted people here illegally to “self deport” we would make it a criminal offense with harsh penalties for anyone who hired them or allowed them to work on public lands at taxpayer (and local business) expense. These policies of “open borders” are nearly as harsh on our own low- and middle-income families as they are on the immigrants being taken advantage of once they get here.
My reforestation crews were among the first to work year-round and pay good wages. In addition to tree-planting, there is a huge backlog of prescribed burning, slashing, precommercial thinning, vegetation control, road and trail maintenance, and animal trapping projects that need to be done. If only Mexicans and Guatemalans are available to do this work, then they should be required to maintain regular living quarters in the US and be given a path to citizenship in exchange for their work ethic and capability. Strong opinion, long held.
Hi Bob, I don’t argue that there may be some cases where fire-killed trees have played a significant role in subsequent fires. I just don’t think it is as big of a threat as it is made out to be. I have been on many fires all over the West and have not personally seen much evidence of where this was a major factor. That’s just been my experience. I personally believe that on the whole, the issue is overblown. That is not to say that there may be isolated cases where it is valid.
I planted trees as a young man and thought I was giving it a pretty good effort. Then I would see the contract crews of Mexicans come along and double my production rate. Do some of these crews have undocumented workers? I think it would be naive to think that they don’t. Hopefully, they have green cards, are here on a work visa or are citizens. Whatever, they are now the vast majority of people doing tree planting work. Our young people do not want to do that type of work. That is the simple truth. Times have changed.
A solution could be to greatly increase the number of work visas that would allow foreign workers to come here for a limited time to do this type of work, and when the work is done, they return home. Is that something the Trump administration would be open to? I guess we’ll see.
Thanks Dave:
Quick responses: my crews of trained professionals — including several Mexicans through the years — did faster work at much better quality and about 2/3 of the price of the migrant crews employed by the Forest Service — and “hopefully” (but not really) some or most of them were legal.
But that was 40 years ago and many of us worked together in crews for 10 and more years at that time and became very expert in our jobs. Young folks today are just as capable and willing — but not at slave-labor rates that come with low-bid contracting that favors part-time migrant labor.
We don’t need more people with phony work visas and identification using taxpayer money to do lesser quality work than was being done in the past. We need better training, higher wages, long-term contracts (“job stability”), and penalties for taking advantage of people who are not legally here. Poor work and working conditions are not fixed by making more of them.
Also, National Forests in the Douglas Fir Region that are covered with snags are not an “isolated example” — they have become the norm and the fires are becoming worse as these lands remain untreated and off-limits. They used to be among the most productive timberlands in the world and a great benefit to local communities and taxpayers — not the costly and deadly eyesores they have devolved into — as clearly predicted — following three decades of gross USFS mismanagement. Documented.
Bob, I am not an expert on contracting but as I recall, the FS requires minimum rates that contractors have to pay their employees. I live in Custer, SD, which is a tourist town in the summer. Many of the restaurant jobs are filled by foreign workers on work visas. These positions make good money, especially the servers with tips. Why do they need to use foreign workers? It’s because there are not enough young people that will do that work.
Could you possibly provide me with a couple or so of these areas in Oregon that have recently (in the last 5-10 years) experienced catastrophic fires in previous burn areas that were not salvaged? I need locations, the names and dates of the fires. I would like to look at these on Google Earth and see what happened. Google Earth has a nice feature with historical imagery where you can go back in time and see what an area looked like prior to a wildfire, and hopefully recent imagery that shows the post-fire effects. I am just curious and want to see what is actually happening in these areas. Has there been any research on this and/or photo series? Before and after? Anything beyond anecdotal? I realize that my personal experience is totally anecdotal.
Hi Dave: We might need a new string if we are to continue this discussion! My wife was from Rapid City and we were there during the Rapid City Flood in 1972, where I secured — and still have — the survey corner post from the original 1892 Homestead Mine timber sale. It had rotted and fallen over, so I still have it 50 years later and still looking for a home.
The truth is, there really are a number of young people and underemployed to do these jobs — it’s just that they won’t do them at slave-labor rates of pay and working conditions. This importation of millions of illegal workers to do the “jobs Americans won’t do” is the worst form of elitist xenophobia. Probably racism, too, but that word seems to have lost all meaning.
So far as “actual case histories” in Oregon over the past 5-10 years of snags reburning even hotter and wider than the original crown fire — I have written extensively on that topic for years and recently summarized this work in my most recent book, “Western Oregon Wildfires: An Anthology” (Amazon, $27.50).
Recent examples include the 2002 Biscuit, 2017 Chetco Bar, and 2018 Klondike fires in southwest Oregon; the 2020 Archie Creek and 2021 Jack Creek and Chaos Fires in Douglas County; and the 2021 Cedar Creek and 2024 Chalk Fires in the Jefferson Wilderness and Willamette National Forest.
There are others, but these examples are among the most obvious, and all occur on USFS and Wilderness lands, despite alternative perspectives from the “peer reviewed” literature. And there is a lot more volatile fuel in those locations now than then through the expanded creation of even more unharvested and untreated snags and flammable weeds.
Thanks, Bob, I will look into those fires. I was actually on the Biscuit Fire but only saw my little portion of it.
Phil’s depiction of a “future forest of dead and blackened” non-survivors of many fires, some of which were attempted to be “managed” by the USFS, is a frightening picture of mis-management and ill-conceived notions.
This is not a disaster in the making; it is a disaster right now!
Salvage for bio-mass urgently needs to get underway with numerous contracts throughout the West;
The Chief must stop using “managed wildfire” as a tactic in his tool box;
Prescribed burning must be shifted to springtime fuel conditions to avoid the dangers of fall burning;
And the full intent of the National Forest Management Act must be met.
i hereby submit to you that none of the above critical actions will occur without a Declaration of a Disaster in our Public Forests!, and that responsibility lies with the Secretary of Agriculture.
One third of the Earth’s tree species are at risk to extinction according to the United Nations.
Fuel treatments on the Santa Fe National Forest helped contain the Medio Fire in 2020 and were accelerated after President Joe Biden took the oath of office. But it’s probably a straight line from the Trump Organization’s Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and crashes in morale within the US Forest Service to current conditions on the SFNF and others in the National Forest System. But as much as this interested party would like to see a marriage between the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management a Trump administration consolidation will cause catastrophic damage to both agencies especially in light of pending budget cuts that are expected to put essential recreation and conservation work at risk but some timber salvage is going to tribal communities.
Hard to figure you out Larry, I reckon we are all that way for a reason. You do assume a combined FS/BLM would stymie all those things important to Forest users, while any reprioritization of work would direct that organization to care for the land, first!
Budget priorities currently direct covering employees as a given. Reducing overhead positions by 60% would free up $ to pay for the folks who actually do the work. Sixty percent is just a starting point, 80% might be better. Redirect staff back to field level positions. Way too many bean counters, off-site “telle’s” and just repetitive specialists that are best at preserving their little kingdom.
Make Forest Headquarters complete and self-functioning. I do see, if the proof is in the pudding, a whole new, old way back for FS/Forest management. That’s what is needed!
As a former RF was known for saying, “Be Bold”……
Mr. Zornes, in stark contrast to what Frank Carroll is espousing above the idea that everything is going to be alright can’t be farther from the truth.
White Republicans in the Mountain West have clearly embraced the idea that the ground they live on was seized for them from aboriginal cultures by liberal democrat, President Thomas Jefferson even though it happened through an executive order that even he believed was unconstitutional. In a just United States most of the land in the public domain would be remanded to tribal communities shrinking the responsibilities of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management making a marriage between them far more palatable except to industry shills like Mr. Carroll.
Well, I agree with Frank, and truth be told we are cut from the same cloth. I sought silviculture instead of “Hotshotting”, but did learn the science of Rx fire (being from the South does that) and became a practitioner in States west of the Mississippi.
The “Native” discussions, while historically correct, probably won’t fly….
Sharon has prepared us a relatively free group for discussions, no matter which side of the fence we graze…