Based on this post, a new study finds:
Overall, the researchers found that tree planting can enhance post-fire forest recovery rates, though its effects are dependent on a range of environmental and operational factors.
Researchers discovered that 79.5% of planted trees survived at least one summer, but success is heavily influenced by the planting season and moisture availability. Cold and wet areas experienced higher rates of forest cover change and early seedling survival due to reduced moisture stress.
Planting in spring and early summer (before June 30) was most effective in these regions, while late-season planting was better suited for warm, dry areas where aridity limits seedling establishment.
Post-planting weather also played a significant role: moderate to wet conditions improved survival by up to 20%, while warm, dry conditions reduced it. These findings underscore the importance of environmental conditions and seasonal timing in reforestation success.
On one hand I would file this study under the file of “DUH”, but also, it is great to see the “DUH” things quantified and peer-reviewed and published to be used for reforestation actions. For use in NEPA documents written by……….who? Whoever is left? The seasonal forestry technicians (excuse me, “Wildland firefighters”, when they are not watching Netflix or doing the bench press)
It’s not “DUH” in dry forests. We have a very low survival rate for planted trees in the SFNF.
Sarah, my point was that the right scale to see if trees grow is locally, where practices can be adjusted. It’s about the scale of the study making generalizations that are nice but don’t help anybody do their work better. I’m not criticizing the authors, they are part of a system that rewards certain ways of looking at the world.
Yup. I remember reading a copy of this report when it first came out — in 1918! I’m guessing this study was funded by taxpayers. Hopefully DOGE will become involved. It sounds “scientific,” but the dumb statistics prove otherwise.
It is really sad to see how far the reforestation industry has degenerated in the past 40 years, and important to note the USFS leading role in this degradation.
I think most forests do, or at least did, seedling survival transects after planting. What we found is that a lot of seedlings survive one year, but the three and five year survival rates were a different story.
It depends on the location, site prep, species, quality of the seedling, and quality of the planting. When we planted Phil Hahn’s plug-1 Douglas fir on the Coast Range, using microsite-density spacing rather than USFS grids, and planting on scarified or broadcast burned ground, our survival rate was well into the 90s for many years — with most mortality caused by animals rather than anything else.
Alder, using the same techniques, was maybe 70%, followed by several years of transplant shock — direct seeding was more successful, and in a few years typically outgrew the plants. Soils and weather in other locations determined survival and growth rates, as did seedling and planting quality. And animals.
Visiting some of our old planting units 25-30 years later with one of my favorite inspectors, Butch Heimsoth, I was surprised to see hundreds of acres of plantations less than 30 and 40 years of age had been clearcut and replanted! A southern-like rotation length for pine, but this was Douglas fir in Oregon.
The commenters have already nailed the best follow ups, but it is almost criminal (it IS a violation of NFMA) for the FS to abandon such a robust reforestation and tree improvement program of the past! I’d guess millions of acres, that we used to call backlog, are being overrun with noxious weeds and off-site brush species. Some of these old fire scars happened 20+ years ago and are just fields of brush and non commercial crap growing on the site! USFS should be ashamed for letting this happen; priorities my be-hind……
Tell me more about the “violation of NFMA.”
Certification of stocked stands within five years of loss/removal. Words to that effect……
Here is the language in NFMA that I am familiar with, which is referring to regulations for forest planning:
“(3)specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of the Program which—
(E)insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where—
(ii)there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest;”
The previous and current planning regulations refer to “expected” and “reasonable assurance of” (respectively) adequate restocking in 5 years in order to identify lands suitable for timber production. It’s possible the timber manual required certification at the project level, but that isn’t a requirement of NFMA.
What has always interested me is that the actual NFMA language is not limited to lands suitable for timber production. I interpret the law to say that that a forest plan must prohibit timber harvest in areas where there is not assurance of adequate restocking. (Of course, the term “adequate” could be pretty flexible.)
Yes, “NFMA has strong requirements that look ahead to the future productivity of a site, and focuses in particular on the ability to reforest an area. Timber may be harvested from national forests only if “there is an assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest” (16 U.S.C.” So, non stocking to standards after five years is a violation of NFMA! However, no one cares much anymore….
Wrong. Not sure who/what you are quoting, but NFMA only requires that forest plan provisions for timber harvest be based on “assurance” of future adequate restocking. Whether it actually occurs on a project is not covered by this language. The Forest Service has been clear that this section of NFMA does not apply to projects.
It’s pretty specific on surveys. And, the sources I see (may be as amended) certainly requires the five years certifications. Also, as far back as 1980, the interpretation in silviculture is as stated. And, quoting a project last year, the reforestation was not going to be met, proclaiming (FS) it would be a violation of NFMA.
“The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) mandates prompt reforestation on national forest lands, essentially making it a key piece of legislation that underpins any reforestation certification process for the U.S. Forest Service, requiring them to actively replant trees after harvesting or other disturbances to maintain appropriate forest cover across their managed lands; this includes standards for reforestation surveys and timelines for replanting activities. “
Again, if you are quoting a project’s interpretation of NFMA, that interpretation is incorrect. NFMA has a forest plan requirement to only allow timber harvest where there is an expectation of adequate restocking, which is not the same as a project requirement that restocking occur. I don’t think a lawsuit to compel reforestation would hold up, but you are welcome to show me otherwise.
On the Rio Grande NF, we planted some areas after the West Fork Complex that were in timber management areas. There was no way to plant all the acres in timber management areas as we didn’t have the money or the seedling stock.
I didn’t realize it was a violation of NFMA for not planting after a fire. I thought it was just tied to logged areas.
It’s not a clear on wildfires, but in suitable timberlands it is treated/was treated like timber sales. However, I’m talking about current timber treatments – early seral results, not meeting minimum stocking after five years. That is a clear violation!
When we had backlog, you either planted it or removed it from suitable acres. The five years was a real thing. However, new Planning (1995- 2012), I guess that ain’t new no more….🤣 , was pretty wishy washy on values of suitable timberlands acres and ASQ….. Those who managed/supervised on the ground work became a bit “loose” on caring…..
As many readers are aware the first US Forest Service timber sale took place in the Black Hills near Nemo but only after nearly all the old growth of every native tree species had been cleared for mine timbers, railroad ties and construction. Native Douglas fir and lodgepole pine are virtually extirpated from the Hills and the Black Hills National Forest is longer a wild thing. The Island in the Plains has been broken for decades but the collapse of select Black Hills ecosystems has been evident since at least 2002. Add the very high number of private inholdings within the Black Hills National Forest that make the wildland urban interface (WUI) very large to one of the highest road densities in the entire national forest system and Region 2 to lots of logging, hardrock mining and pesticides like Carbaryl then understand why over a hundred species in South Dakota alone and a million worldwide are at risk to the Republican Party.
Forty years ago I logged in the Buckhorn and Moskee, Wyoming areas of the Black Hills when much of it was owned by Homestake Mining Company. At that time it was home to some of the last old-growth ponderosa pine stands in the region.
Replanting after the Jasper Fire has been scattershot, too but aspen is mostly thriving there.
Planting Trees Helps Forests Grow Back… unless they burn. Tens of thousands of trees I had a hand in planting have been cooked by wildfires in recent years.
Hi Steve: And if they burn, planting trees will help the forest grow back again. Of the roughly 85,000 acres of reforestation contracts my crews did in the 1970s and 80s, I’m not aware of a single acre that has burned in a wildfire — thousands of acres have been logged and planted again, however, creating thousands of jobs and lots of quality building materials.
Studies like this need to clearly define terms like “forest” and “recovery.”
From an ecosystem perspective, accelerating tree cover truncates other important stages of “forest” “recovery” and associated biodiversity. Some might count this as a negative instead of a positive.
The NFMA states that it is the intent of Congress to keep forested land forested and goes on to state that this means that we have to determine the species composition, density, tree growth rates and other stand conditions needed to meet the land management objectives. There is always lots of focus on the 5-year post-harvest requirement (and there is case law for that), but the very first part of the NFMA Reforestation section is much broader than that.
With a large reduction in non-fire Forestry Technicians, who will be inspecting the treeplanting contractors? For that matter, who will actually be planting the trees? AFAF
I don’t think we know yet exactly who will be reduced… RIF is a strange process with unknown outcomes. Certainly getting rid of district folks doing on the ground work will not be the intention, but still…
What will be the priority? Do the Techs inspect planters? Do the Techs plant the trees? Do the Techs mark the timber? Do the Techs help with Timber Sale Administration? Do the Techs help with Wildlife surveys? Remember, most of them will be held to their tours of duty, this year.
(Also, will current projects be shelved, in favor of “Administration goals”?)
Good questions, but I doubt if anyone knows.
Sharon, how are you so certain the administration does not want to get rid of folks on the ground? Are you speaking only to the pending RIF?
While not a true RIF, let’s not forget the administration is appealing a judges reinstatement of terminated probationary employees, which we can agree are mostly field going personnel.
However, the higher courts ruling will have little impact on many districts as most of those terminated-rehired-litigated rehire- RIF pending employees have moved on and are taking the deferred resignation 2.0. Local district lost 18 initially and by this point in the process they’re down to just 4 still fighting for their job.
So yeah, maybe there’s certainty folks on the ground won’t be targeted as there’s none left.
Anon.. I don’t know that the probationary employees were “mostly” field-going personnel. It’s likely the conversions from temps were.. others, we don’t know. Certainly I heard from employees that not enough of the recent “bulking up” hires were at the district level.
If I look at your numbers correctly, the local district had 22 people initially and 18 of the 22 were probationary (that is, hired in the last two years or converted from temporaries)? That may be unusual. I’d like to hear from others.
While you’d like to hear from others, you’re stuck hearing from me for now. 🙂
I want to preface by saying that I follow this blog, and generally appreciate the views of the contributors, as they are representative of years (decades) of experience at the RO and WO levels. I am only offering my perspective to try to shed light on what is actually happening at the local level.
So back to probationary employees fired around February 14th. I have a (somewhat) incomplete list of 45 probationary employees terminated across a forest. The number of employees terminated was likely higher, but I don’t have all the information.
Of these 45, only three were not temp to perm conversions. And two of those three are the only primarily office workers on the list. The third is a wildlife biologist, so I’ll call it a 75/25 office/field split. The remaining 42 employees on my list are full-time fieldgoing (>90% of their time) employees. These employees include 22 on trails, 3 river rangers, 6 silviculturists, 5 rec techs, 5 timber techs, and 1 wildlife/botany tech.
Additional employees were slated to be terminated the following week (they were on the list), but local leadership was successful in delaying and ultimately preventing those additional terminations. Many of these employees were more office based.
Regarding my prior comment, sorry I wasn’t more clear. 18 was the total program (either TTP or Schedule A) as all GS4s and GS5s were 1039s prior, all 18 were reinstated by the courts, but only 4 are risking coming back. Yes, this is unusual in the sense it is a large program. I’ll speculate that most districts didn’t have that many TTP conversions to start with.
I only offer my perspective due to comments like, “we don’t know.” I do know what has happened on the ground at the district and forest level. I try to be clear that my experience is not indicative of the entire FS and is only representative of a certain area.
But (obviously) I am not a line officer or staff officer, so maybe I don’t have the authority to speak to my experiences and my comments are not welcome here and can be outright dismissed.
I hope I was clear that “we don’t know” I meant generally across the agency. Definitely some people know…maybe across the agency, but they aren’t talking. Certainly people on districts and forests know about their district and forest.
And like everything else in the FS, almost everything varies by district and forest.
Of course your perspective, experience, and detailed information is welcome!