Bark Beetles

To Thin, or Not to Thin? When, Where and Why? Those Are the Questions

by

Let’s look some more at thinning.

First, I’ll say that I don’t know about wet areas.  I remember a class at an Area 4 Silviculture Workshop in the 80’s, taught by Chad Oliver and Bruce Larsen (then of U of Washington). All the models were based on competition for light. I asked “but what if the trees are competing for water?”.  That wasn’t part of modeling at the time.  So much of forest ideas and models were generated from wet forests and don’t apply to dry forests.  The point being that any discussion of thinning needs to be grounded in specifics of when, where and why.

At one end we have “no thinning is ever ecologically necessary.”  Well, that’s a high bar, and not one that’s in law anywhere as I know for activities on National Forests.  I don’t know that campgrounds or ski areas are ecologically necessary either. So the term “ecologically necessary” has to carry quite a bit of weight, especially if different fuels-related assumptions are involved. Are fuels prescriptions ecological? What if the fuels practitioner is trained as a fire ecologist? What do we mean by the term “ecological” in that sense?

Anyway, I’ll make a series of claims that we can discuss.

1. Thinning in forests is very common, at least here in Colorado, outside of a wood products context – purely for fuel treatment or wildfire mitigation. Then there are the folks in Arizona and the Lake Tahoe area, trying to find and encourage wood products companies to take their thinned material.

2. Some people thin in dry areas to reduce density of trees, because more trees can get started than the site can ultimately support.  Thinning gives the remaining trees a better chance to get enough water to grow.

3. Some people thin (at least in California) to return to HRV (with the side benefits of fewer stems on health and resilience as above.)

4. Healthier trees (with stem reduction) are often, but not always, more resistant to bark beetles.

5. Removing biomass (cutting trees and removing them from the site by burning or other removal) reduces fuels.

6. Thinning can be done to help trees grow larger faster, as with west side plantations trying to get bigger trees for habitat, or in many places for wood products.

7. Some species, in some situations, have a tendency to stagnate rather than develop into stands such that without thinning trees don’t become large (“doghair”)..

To engage with previous comments:

Jon said:

It looks like this was looking at basal area rather than the size of trees removed, so I don’t think it proves the point that removing large trees is necessary to protect large trees from drought (or fires?) – unless large trees are all that were growing here.

Yes, I would say if all trees are large in a stand are large, and you want to thin, you would need to remove some large trees.

Jon also said in an earlier comment:

we should minimize it and be choosy about where that is done. Not to mention clearly explaining all this in the rationale for a project. This is what I’m not seeing discussed.

As we shall see in the next post, at least some environmental documents do have rationales and different ways of monitoring “choosiness” have been proposed.

Jake had some interesting comments:

While mortality from MPB was significantly less in the thinned areas (3% vs 13%), when the trees killed by the thinning (which also removed infested living trees) were included in mortality, total mortality is much greater in the thinned areas.

Let’s think about this some more.. (I didn’t go back and look at the study).  When the thinning occurred, they removed more trees than might have been killed by beetles. But the way the stand develops, with more standing and falling dead trees (with MPB death) would be different, and more fuel would be in the stand. I’m not sure that those prescriptions were intended to reduce fuel loadings at the time, but I think it would be hard to argue that such a prescription would not reduce fuel loads.

Is that really “shady accounting” as Jake states?  If the goal is to reduce MPB kill, then thinning would generally be successful.  That would be in the framing of the study itself (reduce MPB mortality) rather than (how to maximize living trees on a site).

Also, the Negron et al (2017) study reported that 4 of their 21 thinned stands had much greater MPB mortality than the paired unthinned stands

That’s the “it doesn’t always work” argument.  We’ve discussed that before with regards to fuel treatments in general.

Another of Jake’s comments:

Thinning, of course, had the benefit of providing saw logs to the mill, but it also probably came with significant costs to the ecosystem.

“Costs to the ecosystem” “ecologically necessary”.   I thought the “ecological integrity” part of the 2012 Planning Rule suggested managing for NRV- related to HRV. But not if HRV is too open or requires thinning. It’s all very confusing.

Instead of “ecological integrity” perhaps the FS should have targeted “forest resilience” which would definitely have a fuels (both for the trees on-site and to support suppression via PODs and other fuelbreaks.

But what “costs to the ecosystem” come from thinning specifically? Wouldn’t it depend on when, where and why?

*************************

 

Two Mountain Pine Beetle Stories: Winter Weather and Germination of Old Cones

by

We’ve been light on biology stories lately…

This one is from the Cowboy State Daily.  Don Day is a Wyoming meteorologist who, among other things, does forecasts in the Cowboy State Daily.

The story is about how people perceive bad winters through time.

Pine Beetles Aren’t Evidence Of Worst Winters Past

In addition to grafting selective memories of bad winters into supposed long-term trends, people also can mistakenly apply regional patters to other areas, Day said.

That’s the case with pine beetle infestation, he noted. During the 2000s and 2010s, pine beetles cut a swatch of death through forests across Wyoming and the West. To this day, large stands of dead pine trees are reminders of the havoc they wreaked.

A common narrative is that a lack of prolonged winter deep freezes failed to kill of beetle larva, allowing them to hatch during the spring and invade areas they’d never been in before, Day said.

People will use that as evidence that winters used to be a lot harder, he said. As the story goes, sub-zero cold snaps would go on for weeks and kill off pine beetle larva, but that quit happening because our winters got milder.

But that’s based on assumptions that conditions in the Canadian Rockies, where the beetles originated, apply across the American Rockies as well, Day said.

In truth, the Canadian Rockies are actually lower than the American Rockies and can be susceptible to polar air sinking down into them, driving temperatures to 30 below zero or so for extended periods. That’s kept the beetles in check there Day said.

But when the beetles managed to spread southward, they were able to survive winters in the American Rockies in much greater numbers, Day said.

“In southern Alberta and British Columbia, the arctic air masses can go deeper and the tree lines are lower,” Day said. “It can’t get that cold for that long in the central and northern American Rockies, it just can’t.”

So, people have “imprinted” conditions in the Canadian Rockies to mountains in Wyoming, creating the false impression that winters here used to get colder and stay cold for longer than they do now, Day said.

The up-and-down cycles of snowfall in the Cheyenne area. (Courtesy Don Day)

This one is from Chuck Rhoades of the Rocky Mountain Research Station. It’s one of their “Science You Can Use (in 5 minutes)” series. Check out the new RMRS website.

Of course, as he says, if desirable lodgepole stocking levels are 150 per acre, it doesn’t take many cones with 26% germination to provide that number, depending on other site conditions. At this point, I’d still bet on the lodgepole.. unless there’s a reburn before the next generation produces seed. Some of us will be around long enough to find out…

Compared to seeds from live or recently killed trees, seeds from these long-dead trees germinated about half as often. Germination varied across the study sites, ranging from 26 percent to 41 percent. Germination also declined with cone age, and 35 percent of the oldest cones produced no germinants at all. The team also tested germination of seeds in cones stored in the soil seedbank under snowpack. These seeds averaged 36 percent germination, which was comparable to seeds released from the canopy seedbank. Though this is good news, cones in the soil seedbank are susceptible to burning by surface and ground fires and predation by rodents.

For many lodgepole pine forests burned in the recent fires, postfire tree densities will meet or surpass acceptable stocking levels (i.e., 150 seedlings per acre). However, based on these RMRS findings, stands with high bark beetle mortality may not provide enough viable seed to reach the minimum density of seedlings needed for recovery. Thus, the double disturbance of bark beetle outbreaks and wildfire may translate into costly reforestation projects.

Sierra At Tahoe Ski Area Re-opens

by

After the Caldor Fire seriously impacted the ski area, Sierra At Tahoe is open again. As you can see, it was a high intensity portion of the fire, with the previous forest being highly flammable and loaded with decades of heavy dead fuels. After several droughts, the area did not have any salvage operations. The area is also known to have nesting pairs of goshawks around.

As you can see, snow sports people will be enjoying a new experience of skiing and boarding, without so many trees ‘hindering their personal snow freedoms’. *smirk*

Bark Beetle Epidemic in Calaveras County

by

 

The bark beetles started their invasion when I used to live there, in Mark Twain’s famous Calaveras County. Now it looks like it has reached epidemic levels, requiring emergency action, from multiple agencies.

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_fbc896b8-7d6f-11e9-94ea-7b4b381822a0.html

Even with recent wet winters, tree mortality will remain a pressing issue as long as bark beetle infestations and drought conditions continue, said Brady McElroy, a hazard tree specialist in the Calaveras Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest.

“By no means is the issue going away,” McElroy said. “What the Forest Service has to focus on are the high priority areas, the immediate hazards to homes, roads and highways.”

In the long-term, McElroy said the Forest Service hopes to increase the pace and scale of thinning projects to restore overstocked forests that have been allowed for by a century of fire suppression.

“Our forests are overstocked, which increases competition (and) stressors on the trees, (and consequently) their ability to defend against bark beetle,” McElroy said. “The ongoing goal is to thin forests to a healthy kind of pre-European settlement stand to where they’re a little more resilient. We’re focusing on high-priority areas in the wildland-urban interface … We know what happens when these overstocked forests catch fire – we lose them.”

Diana Fredlund, a public affairs officer with the Stanislaus National Forest, said that although federal budget decreases have impacted the scale of the work for the Forest Service, the agency has been able to collaborate with private, county, state and other federal agencies and contractors for tree removal projects.

“We do what we can with what we have,” Fredlund said.

The Forest Service offers its own tree mortality program for homeowners with properties adjacent to Forest Service land. Property owners can fill out a Hazard Tree Evaluation Request Form to be considered for hazard tree abatement.

Sierra Club Comments

by

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.

 

“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.

 

“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.

 

“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.

 

“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.

 

“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.

 

“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.

 

“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?

 

“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.

 

“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!

 

“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.

 

“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!

 

“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”

I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*

 

“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!

 

“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!

 

“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.

 

“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??

 

“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.

 

“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!

 

“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.

 

“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!

 

“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.

 

 

Slanted News?

by

I found an LA Times article regarding the Rim Fire, as well as the future of forest management within the Sierra Nevada. Of course, Chad Hanson re-affirms his preference to end all logging, everywhere. There’s a lot of seemingly balanced reporting but, there is no mention of the Sierra Nevada Framework, and its diameter limits. There is also the fact that any change to the SNF will take years to amend. There was also no mention that only about 20,000 Federal acres of the Rim Fire was salvaged, with some of that being in 40-year old plantations.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rim-fire-restoration-20180718-story.html

There might also be another ‘PictureGate“, involving Chad Hanson displaying supposed Forest Service clearcut salvage logging. His folks have already displayed their inability to locate themselves on a map. If he really had solid evidence, he SURELY would have brought it into court

Additionally, the comments are a gold mine for the misinformation and polarization of the supposedly ‘progressive’ community of readers.

Trump “demands” more logging. Really? Does he ever request, suggest or ask for information? I’m tired of hearing of Trump’s “demands.” It could be that some logging would be beneficial but the minute Trump “demands” it, it is suspect. One of his friends will be making millions on the logging and probably giving a kickback to a Trump business. Trump is the destructor of all things beautiful or sacred, the King Midas of the GOP.

A tiny increase in logging of small trees is very unlikely to generate “millions”.

You have no idea what “forest management” is. You want to clearcut all of the old growth forests and then turn them into Christmas tree lots and pine plantations. That is industrial tree farming, not forest management. That is the dumb dogma, speaking, not actual management of the forests.

Most people in southern California don’t know that Forest Service clearcutting and old growth harvesting in the Sierra Nevada has been banned since 1993. The article makes no mention of that.

Riddle me this, Lou. How did the forests manage before we spent $2.5 billion dollars a year on fire suppression? Are we the problem or the cure? Is this just another out of control bureaucracy with a life of its own?

Of course, no solution offered.

New Study About Forests Impacted by Extreme Mortality

by

http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix146/4797261

 

Massive tree mortality has occurred rapidly in frequent-fire-adapted forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. This mortality is a product of acute drought compounded by the long-established removal of a key ecosystem process: frequent, low- to moderate-intensity fire. The recent tree mortality has many implications for the future of these forests and the ecological goods and services they provide to society. Future wildfire hazard following this mortality can be generally characterized by decreased crown fire potential and increased surface fire intensity in the short to intermediate term. The scale of present tree mortality is so large that greater potential for “mass fire” exists in the coming decades, driven by the amount and continuity of dry, combustible, large woody material that could produce large, severe fires. For long-term adaptation to climate change, we highlight the importance of moving beyond triage of dead and dying trees to making “green” (live) forests more resilient.

Some red meat for the anti-litigation crowd

by

Here’s a story about an enjoined timber sale that might be burning up right now.  It will no doubt become Exhibit A for arguing why we should not allow the public to sue the government over its land management decisions.

“Both the Park Creek and Arrastra Fires on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest were ignited by lightning storms that spread through dense stands of dead timber. And both are located within the area of the Forest Service’s proposed Stonewall Vegetation Project, which was halted when two environmental litigant groups successfully convinced a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the project.”

I just have to question the conclusions:  “The preliminary injunction against the Stonewall project, and the resulting fires …”  and the idea that environmental litigants should be “held accountable for their actions.” First there is the question of what exactly their actions caused (the fires?), and second is the idea that there should be liability associated with winning a lawsuit.  I think the judge allocated accountability in this case to the Forest Service for failing to follow the law.  They could have reconsulted on lynx critical habitat long ago, and the court said they should have, and if they had, the project would have probably occurred on schedule.

 

Summary of fire debate points

by

The latest from Headwaters lays out their point of view on several topics that have been discussed a lot on this blog (with cites).  The 2016 paper is posted in full and is pretty short and sweet.  The key points:

1. Fire size and frequency will increase under a warmer and drier climate

2. Fuel reduction on federal lands will do little to reduce acreage burned and homes lost

3. Not all forests need restoration

4. High severity fires often have ecological benefits

5. Insect outbreaks do not necessarily make fires worse

6. Land-use planning can reduce wildfire risk

7. Managing more fires to burn safely can reduce risk and increase ecological benefit

Case closed?

A test of the 2014 insect and disease categorical exclusion

by

The Center for Biological diversity is suing the Tahoe National Forest for its decision on the Sunny South timber sale. The sale is designed to “reduce the extent and risk of insect infestations, as well as to reduce the negative effects of those infestations on forest health and resilience.” Plaintiffs allege, “Six (California spotted) owl territories are slated to be logged …, all of which are important contributors to the overall owl population given the high degree of successful owl reproduction in these old forested areas.”

Section 603 of the amended Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes a categorical exclusion for qualifying insect and disease projects in designated areas on National Forest System lands. An insect and disease project that may be categorically excluded under this authority is a project that is designed to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in the areas.  The project must be located in an area designated pursuant to a Governor’s request for areas in their State that are experiencing, or at risk of, an insect or disease epidemic. The project must also meet other criteria, including these rather subjective ones:

  • The project was developed through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests and is transparent and non-exclusive.
  • The best available scientific information must be considered to maintain or restore ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring the structure, function, composition and connectivity.

We might find out a little more about what these things mean from this court.

There used to be a sort of rule of thumb that if a project looked controversial, the Forest Service wouldn’t pursue a categorical exclusion (in part because they may be difficult to defend in court). The new agency policy appears to be to thumb its nose.