This article in the Idaho Stateman-Journal, “Forest Service studies evolving landscape through ‘retake’ photo project,” has a link to a site where you can view the photos. Most have “swipe” bars that let you see then and now (or recent) photos. Just a handful of locations, but interesting.

A recent article in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, a journal of the Ecological Society of America, will be of interest to members of this blog. It’ll probably be controversial, too. I urge anyone expressing opinions, pro or con, to stick to factual, constructive criticism, and to avoid attacks of a personal nature on anyone involved, just as the authors seem to have done.

The article is: “The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation,” by M Zachariah Peery and eight other authors. The full text of this and a companion article is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331453208_The_conundrum_of_agenda-driven_science_in_conservation

The authors write that, “At this time, we believe advocacy by scientists is essential for environmental conservation and, indeed, humanity. It is difficult to envision the state of our environment had scientists failed to encourage policy makers and the public to address emerging conservation problems. Nevertheless, conservation scientists must avoid misusing the scientific process to promote specific conservation outcomes (Wilholt 2009); doing so erodes the credibility of science and can produce undesirable consequences (Thomas 1992; Mills 2000; Rohr and McCoy 2010). We consider intentionally engaging in activities outside of professional norms to promote desired outcomes, as part of either the production or dissemination of science, to constitute “agenda-driven science”. The issue of advocacy-related bias in conservation science merits renewed discussion because conservation conflicts in an increasingly polarized world might tempt some to engage in agenda-driven science to “win” a conflict (Redpath et al. 2015; Kareiva et al. 2018).”

In the companion article, “Agenda-driven science? The case of spotted owls and fire,” the authors use “Several studies from one research group (Lee, Bond, and Hanson)” – referred to as LBH – as a case study. LBH are Derek E. Lee, Monica Bond, and Chad Hanson. Hanson has been mentioned in numerous posts here; he is coauthor (with Dominick A. DellaSala), of The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix, and numerous articles and essays. Bond and Lee are frequent coauthors with Hansen.

The authors of “Agenda-driven science?” write:

“Certainly, advocacy in support of these positions could, in some cases, be justified because fuels treatments and salvage logging have the potential to be detrimental to owl habitat and forest ecosystems, respectively (Lindenmayer and Noss 2006; Ganey et al. 2017).”

So far, so good.

“However, as detailed below, it is our opinion that LBH appear to have engaged in six activities outside of professional norms in support of their advocacy that promote a narrative that high-severity wildfire does not threaten spotted owls. These apparent activities include: (i) mixing science and litigation without disclosing potential conflicts of interest; (ii) using social media (rather than peer-reviewed journals) to conduct critical scientific reviews of studies that do not support the findings of their own work; (iii) pressuring scientists and graduate students with different research findings to retract their papers or not publish their thesis findings; (iv) conducting erroneous analyses using data they did not collect and with which they were unfamiliar; (v) selectively using data that support their agendas; and (vi) making management recommendations beyond what is reasonably supported by scientific findings. Individually, we consider each of these activities to fall outside of scientific norms. Collectively, however, they may be symptomatic of agenda-driven science involving attempts to understate uncertainty and promote a narrative not fully supported by the scientific literature that aims to influence forest management.”

These weighty accusations are well documented in the peer-reviewed “Agenda-driven science?” article.

Questions for discussion:

1. Is this an unusual or perhaps unprecedented evaluation of a body of work (by LBH)?

2. Is it fair, valid criticism?

3. Are there other examples of authors whose “activities outside of professional norms” in natural resources subject areas?

4. What is to be done, if anything, when agenda-driven science crosses the line between advocacy and “activities outside of professional norms” of advocacy?

From the National Wild Turkey Federation. Interesting use the of Good Neighbor Authority. I don’t know if this is the scoping letter for the project, but if not it’s a similar one. Most folks would have no objection to openings for wildlife habitat; some would object is commercial timber harvesting were involved. This project includes “dropping trees to increase feathering of the edges” but apparently not commercial timber harvesting. Note that “Many spot openings were created by the expansion of log landings following timber harvest.”

The NWTF partnered with the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency and the Cherokee National Forest to create habitat openings for wildlife across 1,249 acres in the Tellico and Ocoee districts of the Cherokee National Forest. The NWTF provided tractor implements to achieve these openings.

“There’s a great partnership [with Cherokee National Forest] where the agency is helping manage a lot of linear openings and wildlife fields on the national forest,” said Chris Coxen, NWTF district biologist. “They’re using the Good Neighbor Authority to help get more habitat work accomplished on federal land … We’ve helped them get a lot more work done through the equipment we’ve provided.”

Clearing away overgrown woody plants has allowed more room in the habitat for grasses and other plants beneficial to wildlife to thrive. In addition, mowing has provided open area for wildlife to live and feed.

“They provide habitat for insects that turkeys eat, that deer browse and that other critters nest in,” Coxen said. “Maintaining these areas is good for brood cover, insect foraging and pollinators. It’s kind of a buffet in some of these areas … These linear corridors are some of the only permanent areas like that in some sections of the forest, so it’s important to keep them open.”

A report from a nonprofit institute says forest restoration initiatives generated $150 million dollars for northern Arizona’s economy in 2017. The study was conducted to meet a Congressional requirement for monitoring the results of large-scale restoration projects.

The link goes to a short article with a link to the report by the Conservation Economics Institute. Another report there looks worth reading:

“Forest Density Preferences of WUI Homebuyers”

FYI, a webinar of interest:

Structured Decision Making: An approach to solving problems in natural resources management
https://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/2019-webinar-mar

Structured decision making (SDM) is a flexible and robust approach to making difficult choices. It can be used by an individual or as the framework for collaborative decision making, and it can take as little as a few minutes or as much as many months. Most importantly, SDM yields decisions that are more likely to achieve your objectives and are more likely to be accepted by others. I will provide an overview of SDM, including the 5 main components of every decision, and examples of its application in managing natural resources, primarily wildlife. This presentation is designed for natural resource professionals in a variety of roles, from on the ground practitioners to higher level managers.

Date: March 19, 2019 from noon to 1pm
Speaker: Mike Larson, Supervisor & Decision Analyst, Forest Wildlife Research, MN DNR, Grand Rapids
Cost: $20 per webinar or $50 for the entire 2019 series (except for certain free locations in Minn.)

From E&E News today….

Disappointing, but not surprising, reduction: “Funding for wildfire suppression would decline, from $1.5 billion to $1 billion, although a new emergency fund of $2.25 billion would be available to tap if regular suppression funds are exhausted….”

Wildfire management draws budget focus

The Trump administration’s proposed budget for fiscal 2019 would put money behind officials’ promise to more intensively manage national forests — but doesn’t predict much more timber coming out of them.

That’s one takeaway from the administration’s budget proposal for agriculture and forestry, which would slash some programs popular with lawmakers while boosting other initiatives. Overall spending would decline from the current fiscal year.

The president’s budget calls for more hazardous fuels reduction in Forest Service-managed lands, reflecting officials’ position that those areas have become more at risk for fire because of dry conditions and lack of maintenance over the years.

At least 1.1 million acres of national forest land would be treated for wildfire risk, the Agriculture Department said in budget documents.

But the proposal would maintain the current goal of 3.7 billion board feet of timber sold, a slight increase from the 3.2 billion board feet sold in 2018.

Overall, the proposal represents a mixed picture for forest programs.

The $450 million proposed for hazardous fuels reduction would be about $20 million more than this year, and the $375 million for forest products around $9 million more — both representing record-high levels, the administration said.

But total discretionary funding for the Forest Service would fall from nearly $6 billion this year to $5.1 billion as part of the administration’s plan. Funding for wildfire suppression would decline, from $1.5 billion to $1 billion, although a new emergency fund of $2.25 billion would be available to tap if regular suppression funds are exhausted — an arrangement Congress enacted beginning next year to avert the raiding of non-fire-related accounts by the Forest Service.

State and private forestry programs, which cover a wide variety of areas, from state parks to big-city tree-planting programs, would take a big hit, from $337 million in this year’s omnibus spending bill to $182 million in the president’s budget.

Land acquisition accounts would be eliminated at the Forest Service, and spending on capital projects would fall slightly under the 2020 proposal.

Other programs at USDA are also targeted for cuts, including crop insurance that’s covered in part by the federal government and some conservation programs. The administration proposed cutting the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program by $40 million a year and would eliminate the Conservation Stewardship Program, which Congress renewed in the 2018 farm bill in December after extended House-Senate negotiations.

The proposal contains several revenue-raisers in a handful of USDA agencies, including a new user fee at the Forest Service to cover costs to streamline minerals permitting, the department said. That would generate $60 million in fiscal 2020, according to the budget.

An additional $130 million would come from retaining mineral receipts to pay for infrastructure projects, USDA said.

Folks, here are a few brief excerpts from a lengthy (552 pages) report, “AB 1504 California Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Wood Product Carbon Inventory: 2017 Reporting Period, FINAL REPORT.” The report was “completed through an agreement between the U.S. Forest Service…, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection…, and the University of Montana.”

http://bof.fire.ca.gov/board_committees/ab_1504_process/

“The 2017 reporting period annual rate of carbon sequestration for just the forest ecosystem pools is 29.2 MMT CO2e per year. This value is down by approximately 2.2 MMT CO2e per year from the 2016 measurement cycle. This reduction in carbon sequestration is the result of several factors including improvements in inventory methodology but is also being driven by two complementary factors; an increased rate of tree mortality and decreased gross growth rate on live trees during the most recent measurement years. Tree mortality regardless of cause, accounted for an additional 2.5 MMT of CO2e converted to dead wood annually. Gross growth on trees measured 10-years earlier declined by 1.2 MMT CO2e annually further reducing the net rate of sequestration.”

…

“In many forest types, current stocking levels reflect over a century of fire suppression and may not represent stand densities that are resilient to disturbances common to California forests such as fire or pest outbreaks. Additionally, as the forests age in unharvested stands, growth rates slow. Older forests tend to store more carbon, but they might not accumulate new carbon as quickly as younger, fast-growing stands. Consequently, the stocks and flux represented in this report may not be sustainable into the future without forest management given the uncertainty in potential effects from climate change, the current level of forest disturbances from wildfire and pests, and aging of forests on federal lands. From the 2015 reporting cycle, we are already beginning to see drought effects on tree growth and mortality. Forests provide many other services beyond carbon sequestration and storage, so there are many other considerations beyond forest carbon dynamics when developing management actions.”

…

<<Selected bullet points that reference National Forest lands, from Section 1, Executive summary and key findings:>>

• The national forests account for 35% of the statewide annual flux at a rate of 10.3 ± 2.8 MMT CO2e per year (figure 4.1).
• Only on reserved forest lands managed by the Forest Service is live tree growth not currently estimated to exceed carbon losses from the live tree pool due to tree mortality (Figure 4.4a, Table 4.4a).
• Annual gross growth per acre on live trees is currently exceeding all other carbon losses from the live tree pool due to mortality or harvest on unreserved timberland for all ownerships including lands managed by the Forest Service.
• The Shasta-Trinity National Forest has the highest net annual carbon sequestration rate for all forest pools at approximately 2.7 ± 0.9 MMT CO2e per year (Table 4.6b).
• There are four national forests in California currently experiencing a net loss of carbon based on all pools; San Bernardino (-0.3 ± 0.3 MMT CO2e per year), Los Padres (-0.3 ± 0.4 MMT CO2e per year), Angeles (-0.05 ± 0.2 MMT CO2e per year, and the Lake Tahoe Basin (-0.07 ± 0.2 MMT CO2e per year) (Table 4.6c).

Greenwire article, “‘Highly unusual’ push aims to transfer income, not ownership”

Arizona received nearly $40 million in federal payments in fiscal 2018 to offset the Copper State’s more than 28 million acres of non-taxable public lands — but for critics like state Rep. Mark Finchem (R), that isn’t nearly enough.

Instead, Finchem is leading a push to establish a new state Department of Public Land Management that would become the first collection point for fees from all land-use agreements such as grazing fees and rights-of-way grants.

“This is one solution to see to it that PILT [payments in lieu of taxes] is reset so the state of Arizona might take its portion — depending on the agreement that’s negotiated with the Department of the Interior — and then send whatever the residual is on to the secretary of the Interior,” Finchem, chairman of the state House Federal Relations Committee, explained at a hearing on his bill, H.B. 2547, earlier this month.”

Press release from Oregon State today:

2-4-19

NW Forest Plan 25 years later: Wildfire losses up, bird populations down

By Steve Lundeberg, 541-737-4039, [email protected]

Sources: Matt Betts, 541-737-3841, [email protected]; Ben Phalan, [email protected]

This story is available online: http://bit.ly/2G97xKn.

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Twenty-five years into a 100-year federal strategy to protect older forests in the Pacific Northwest, forest losses to wildfire are up and declines in bird populations have not been reversed, new research shows.

The findings, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, underscore the importance of continuing to prioritize the safeguarding of older forests, the scientists say – forests characterized by a complex structure that includes multiple canopy layers, large trees, downed wood and snags.

The researchers stress it’s vital to remember that upon its adoption in 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan was conceived as a century-long plan, and was not expected to show significant positive impacts on biodiversity for 50 years.

“Trees in the northwestern United States are some of the longest-lived and largest in the world,” said Matt Betts of Oregon State University. “Douglas-fir can live to be more than 800 years old and grow to be more than 100 meters tall, so it shouldn’t be surprising that it is hard to ‘restore’ this forest type, and that any plan to do so will take a long time.

“The plan has been one of the most impressive forest conservation strategies in the world, and there is no doubt that it has had a strong positive impact on the conservation of old-growth forests, but our results show that even with these strong conservation measures, bird species living in this system still aren’t doing too well.”

The NWFP, a series of federal policies put in place at the behest of then President Bill Clinton, encompasses 10 million hectares of land, including national forests, national parks, wilderness areas and Bureau of Land Management parcels, in Oregon, Washington and California.

Betts and OSU research associate Ben Phalan led a collaboration that used region-wide bird surveys, forest data and land ownership maps to gauge the plan’s effect on biodiversity so far. Birds are a key indicator of biodiversity.

The researchers examined population trends for 24 widespread bird species for which the Pacific Northwest holds important populations – some associated with older forests, some with diverse early-seral ecosystems, and some with both.

While there have been other detailed studies of threatened species such as spotted owls and marbled murrelets, this study focused on what populations of more-common birds can tell us about wider forest biodiversity.

Populations of bird species associated with older forests – such as the varied thrush, golden-crowned kinglet, Pacific-slope flycatcher and Townsend’s warbler – are continuing to struggle on both federal and private industrial land, the findings show.

On private industrial land, that’s likely due to ongoing timber harvesting, while on federal land it’s due, at least in part, to the recent uptick in fires in the Northwest, in part because of drought.

“All forests in the region evolved with fires to some degree, but now, at a time when old-growth forests are so depleted, stand-replacing fires have become an important cause of declines in bird populations in older forests,” said Betts, professor of landscape ecology and the IWFL Professor of Forest Biodiversity Research in OSU’s College of Forestry. “Evidence suggests that some of the increase in fires is climate related.”

Another important finding, notes Phalan, now based at the Institute of Biology at the Federal University of Bahia in Salvador, Brazil, is that the area of young, complex preforest vegetation – known as “diverse early-seral ecosystems” – isn’t declining as much as the researchers expected, and had increased in some regions.

“Again, that seems to be because new fires are creating quite a bit of early seral,” Phalan said. “There are proposals that more of this vegetation type be promoted via forest management, but our results show that birds in older forests are more likely to be in decline than those in early-seral ecosystems, so we need to be very careful not to reduce our options for recovery of older forests – especially dense, moist forests.”

Diverse early-seral ecosystems support many broadleaf species, shrubs and herbs as well as young conifers, and are important habitats for some bird species. Bird species associated with these habitats that are showing ongoing declines include the rufous hummingbird, willow flycatcher and orange-crowned warbler. For most of these species, however, in contrast to birds of older forests, the declines have not gotten worse.

Betts said that before launching into efforts to create these diverse early-seral ecosystems, more information is needed regarding how much of it there might have been historically in different areas, and how sensitive the associated species are to reduced habitat.

Phalan emphasizes the findings show that efforts to maintain and restore old-growth forests are working, but that it’s harder to prevent stand-replacing fires than to manage logging.

“It was anticipated in the plan that species declines might take decades to arrest,” he said. “It was surprising, though, to learn that species associated with older forests continued to decline much faster than those in early seral. We argue that, because forest regeneration is an inherently slow process, and because fires are going to become more frequent in most forest types, forest plans should continue to emphasize conservation of old-growth habitats.”

-30-

Interactive map of fires in California: worth a look.