Dr. Hansen, left, and Dr. Eckdahl near Midpines this month. “Ponderosa seeds have adapted to fire, that’s how they live,” Dr. Hansen said. “But the fires are just too hot for them.”
To better understand these cascading effects, Dr. Hansen and Johan Eckdahl, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, visited the Sierra Nevada this month. On a 100-foot hillside plot that burned in the 2022 Oak fire, they recorded each flowering plant and shrub, filled plastic bags with soil, and checked the ground moisture and temperature with a special probe.
Under normal conditions, seedlings would sprout all over after a fire. Young trees would grow and compete for space, water and light, and the forest would return after a decade or two. But the combination of more intense fires and a warmer, drier climate has stopped this age-old process of regeneration.
As Dr. Hansen stood among the brush at the research site, the absence of new growth was stark. “We haven’t found one ponderosa seedling,” he said. “Ponderosa seeds have adapted to fire. That’s how they live. But the fires are just too hot for them.”
I know that there are many TSW readers with more Sierra experience, so I hope you will add your experience. It looks to me like the seed sources (Mom Pine Trees) are dead.
As we know from Silvics of North America:
Ponderosa pine seeds are not disseminated naturally over extensive distances. In central Oregon, seedfall at 37 m (120 ft) was only 22 percent of the seedfall at the west edge of a cleared area, and at 120 m (396 ft) it was only 8 percent (3)
So maybe the seeds are not there, not that “the fire is too hot for them.” Also I’m not sure that the seeds have “adapted to fire”. What does that even mean? Certainly the species has adapted to fire, and seeds prefer bare mineral soil.
If seeds flew from last year, they would likely be burned up in a ground fire. If a fire occurs in the summer, the cones are still on the trees, so in a crown fire are likely to become toast, just like the rest of the tree. Back to Silvics:
Throughout ponderosa pine’s range, except in the Black Hills and the west side of the Sierra Nevada, natural regeneration is sporadic. Successful natural regeneration is thought to be the result of the chance combination of a heavy seed crop and favorable weather during the next growing season. Soil texture, plant competition, and seedbed conditions are other common determinants of survival of young seedlings (13)
In some places “seedlings would sprout all over after a fire” is true. In other places not so much. Our friend the lodgepole is quite good at regenerating, often growing up into doghair. But ponderosa not so much everywhere, especially in drier climates. That’s why the Central Oregon forests hired our own Area Reforestation Specialist in the 1980’s. We used to think we needed a) Mother Trees to be alive b) a good cone year to coincide with c) bare mineral soil. This was always difficult, because competing vegetation tends to grow back and make the site less hospitable to successful seedling establishment.
The forest would return after a decade or two? I guess this depends on what you consider “forest.” In dry areas, you might get a foot a year of growth.
Even if seedlings do take hold, they face tough odds. Across the Sierra Nevadas, about one-fifth of the conifers, or cone-bearing trees, are not well suited to the current warming climate.
This link goes back to the New York Times story about zombie trees, which also quotes folks from Cary. I think I wrote about that one before so will look for that. It is kind of interesting for climate modelers to tell folks who understand conifer adaptation that the trees aren’t “well suited.” In simpler days, we used to measure “well suited” by survival, growth, resistance to pests, and ability to reproduce. We also studied how conifers adapt to changing environments and what the mechanisms for long-lived organisms stuck in the ground with changing climates.
Have all these additional layers of abstraction added anything to our knowledge? And why is the “model what bad things are going to happen” studies getting so much more funding than the “how do things work in the physical world and what can we do about it?” studies. It’s as if during WWII research went toward modeling “what if the Nazis took over and we did nothing about it?” rather than “what tools can we use to keep them from taking over?”
A team with the New Mexico Reforestation Center monitors seedlings in Mora County. (Courtesy of Pouli Sikelianos/New Mexico Highlands University)
This seems like science to me…from Matt Hurteau who is the Director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society at the University of New Mexico.
“Plant and seedling survival in these wildfire footprints across the Southwest has averaged about 25 percent,” he said. ”What we’ve been doing is a years-long campaign to try and figure out how to improve those numbers.”
As we with refo experience (and just looking around on N and S facing slopes) know:
He says the model can predict the chance that a planted seedling will survive with about 63 percent accuracy. He and his team have produced maps for the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire’s footprint, which land managers can use to decide when and where to plant. So far, the model is limited to ponderosa pine, one of the most commonly transplanted species, but Hurteau said it could be replicated for use with other types of trees.
Hurteau has found that when planted in middle or lower elevation ranges, ponderosa pine seedlings fare the worst on south, southeast, southwest and west-facing slopes because they’re exposed to too much solar radiation.
“They’re much hotter and drier than, say, slopes that are northwest to northeast, maybe even east facing,” Hurteau said.
Areas that are more likely to accumulate water see higher survival rates, he added.
Yes, I can be down on some models. Models that don’t take known important variables into consideration. Models that are not ground-truthed, and their outputs not reviewed for accuracy (when predicting the future). But these reforestation models are likely to be updated with real world data over time.
Anyway, back to the Times article.
Researchers say that as trees disappear, winter and spring snow will melt faster, affecting wildlife as well as communities that are already struggling with water shortages. Some Western states get as much as 75 percent of their water from snowmelt.
“When you remove the forest, that snow is more susceptible to melting earlier,” said Benjamin Hatchett, an interdisciplinary scientist at Colorado State University. And he noted that a warmer, more arid climate dries out soil and pulls moisture from plants, making them more susceptible to wildfire. “That thirstier atmosphere is a big concern,” he said.
Trees are good. I’m all for trees. Still, remember the studies about how tree removal via thinning is good for water availability? Like this one. You might even remember the “let’s cut down more trees to increase water supply” controversy (was that Wyoming?)
Roger Bales: One thing we found is that medium-intensity fire is approximately equal to the restoration treatments the Forest Service and others are trying to do. And when you have that medium-intensity fire or the restoration treatment, you can reduce evapotranspiration, which means more runoff.
In the American River basin, the highest we saw was a net evapotranspiration reduction equal to about 55,000 acre-feet of water per year. This is for all of the American River basin. So when you add up all the fires in the American River basin over that time period, from 1990 to 2008, by 2008 you had gained 55,000 acre-feet more runoff compared to 1990.
People would love to have that amount of water. And that does not get us into the most recent decade of more high-intensity fires. This was just the period when we had the best data.
Now, you go down the Kings River basin, in the southern Sierra, and you didn’t gain nearly as much. Why? Well, the Kings is water-limited. They don’t get as much precipitation. You take out some trees, and the other trees that are left sort of say, “OK great, more water for us!” The potential for runoff gains basically increases as you go further north.
Note that Bales finds that the story is different within the Sierra Nevada mountains. Whereas the Times quote seems to imply one thing across the West. And of course, the elderly among us remember the Hubbard Brook study.
Changes in water yield are summarized for experimental treatments performed on three gauged, forested watersheds at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire. The treatments included clear-felling and herbicide applications performed on watershed 2 during 1965-68, progressive strip-cutting performed on watershed 4 during 1970-74, and whole-tree harvesting performed on watershed 5 during 1983-84. Responses in annual water yield varied markedly among treatments. Clear-felling and 3 successive years of herbicide applications caused annual water yields to increase by an average of 288 mm, or 32%. The strip-cutting and whole-tree harvesting treatments caused maximum annual increases in water yield of 114 mm (8%), and 152 mm (23%), respectively. Most of the water yield increases occurred as augmentation to low flows during the growing season, although some peak flows were also increased. Volume of snowmelt runoff was relatively unaffected. Increases in annual water yield diminished rapidly as forests regenerated and were undetectable within 7-9 years after treatment. Unexpected decreases in annual water yields occurred for years 13-30 after the clear-felling and herbicide treatment and for years 8-25 after the strip-cutting due to the regenerating forests having greater proportions of tree species with lower stomatal resistances.
Clearly, the impacts of wildfires depend on many, many things. You’ve got the weather, the climate, the soils, the fire intensity, the distribution of moisture over the year, the vegetation and so on.
We know wildfires can be bad for water quality, as well, which is why Denver Water is so enthusiastic about… fuel treatments. From Denver Water:
Moderate and severe wildfires are the greatest threat to Denver’s raw water supply. Denver Water partners with the U.S. Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, National Resource Conservation Service and the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute to restore forest health and reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire through the From Forests to Faucets partnership. This work restores forests to their naturally resilient conditions through thinning, patch cuts and reforestation. In addition, the Colorado State Forest Service has been Denver Water’s forester since 1985 and manages over 50,000 acres of forested land on Denver Water property.
Denver Water works with multiple federal and state agencies, research institutions, fire management partners and other Front Range water providers to identify and prioritize at-risk watersheds that will be the focus of protection measures. Taking a collaborative approach to forest restoration and wildfire mitigation amplifies the benefits of watershed protection projects.
OK, so don’t you wonder sometimes if different disciplines even talk to each other? I looked up Hatchett (what is an interdisciplinary scientist, after all?). You’d think he might be a hydrologist… not so much.
Ben Hatchett is a fire meteorologist on the User Needs Assessment Team for the NOAA Fire Weather Testbed based at the Global Systems Laboratory in Boulder, CO. He received his B.S. in Geography (minor in Hydrogeology) (2008), M.S. in Atmospheric Science (2012) and Ph.D. in Geography (2016) from the University of Nevada, Reno. Hatchett works remotely out of California.
So let’s take a look at this NY Times article in depth. First of all, let’s frame it the way, say, a 1980’s educated forest geneticist might.
Due to whatever reasons (some combo of fire suppression, lack of fire suppression, climate change and whatever else) many wildfires today have many acres of dead trees.
While pollen can come from far away (my own dissertation) pine seeds don’t go as far.
Hence, no Mommy trees no seedlings
So if you want to get trees back, you need to plant them. We know how to do this. Or at least many retirees know how to do this. Maybe a useful task would be to interview these folks before their knowledge becomes inaccessible?
That forest is gone for good, scientists say. Spiky shrubs and poison oak have replaced the majestic trees. All that is left of the pines are burned logs and dead branches.
It’s part of a wider transformation that’s taking place across the Western United States, from Oregon to New Mexico, as bigger and hotter wildfires sweep through forests that have not evolved to survive such high-intensity blazes and a warmer climate. Recent studies estimate that as much as 40 percent of Western conifer forests will turn into shrubland by 2100 as a result.
Actually this is not unlike the wildfire-climate papers that model future wildfire acres without (you guessed it) fire suppression. I get it, it’s too hard to model. People and budgets and technology are all involved. But you can’t blow them all off. Or can you? Is that a theme… ignore the people involved in adaptation? And what is really behind it. Interestingly the authors of the study are from Pennsylvania, so maybe that makes it easier to ignore the things that are obvious to the people living with fire and trees.
So let’s look at that “recent study”:
Here, we developed a biogeography module based on BIOME419,20—a biogeography model that simulates the equilibrium distribution of dominant PFTs integrated within an existing biogeochemical model21. We then used the resulting model to assess the impact of changing climate on dominant PFTs in forested regions of the western United States, where trees are the dominant PFTs and determined whether these changes will result in a shift in the dominant PFTs under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 at a monthly time step. The model uses bioclimatic envelopes to determine the PFTs that can exist in each grid cell. PFT competition is based on total Net Primary Productivity (NPP), where the most productive PFT is considered the dominant PFT, which is then selected and given 100% coverage of the grid cell. Each grid cell is 0.5 by 0.5 degrees. In our future run (2015–2100), we simulate varying levels of fire severity governed by ignition, fuel availability, and fuel combustibility. Historical fires use the same fire module but are modified to better capture historical fire regimes, as described in the Online Methods section. Analysis of model results focuses on changes occurring by the end of the century 2070–2100.
Folks will be glad to know that the 40% in the times article is from RCP 4.5 and not the discredited 8.5.
Uh- oh.
The four variables tested are interrelated: warming worsens drought, leading to more severe fires that clear tree PFTs, allowing grass and shrub expansion22. These findings highlight the roles of temperature, moisture stress, and fire severity in ecosystem shifts under evolving climatic scenarios. Our results show that warming and droughts lead to more severe fires (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2).
They managed to ignore all of : reforestation, thinning, prescribed fire, and fire suppression actions and technological improvements… by the end of the century! This seems quite unlikely.
“This is a permanent shift from one ecosystem type to a fundamentally different one,” said Winslow Hansen, a forest ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, an independent research center in Millbrook, N.Y.
Now you might ask, why is Cary Institute studying western wildfires? We might notice an asymmetry.. does University of Denver study wildfire in the Alleghenies? It turns out that there is a Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative (with many PI’s including an FS employee) funded by three philanthropies.. the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Lyda Hill Philanthropies and Hearst Foundations. It sounds to me as if there is much USG funding similar things already.
I guess, based on bullet two, they’ve already decided that there will be “non-reversible forest loss.” But they don’t know that planting trees won’t work. No one knows but some of us have more confidence in conifer adaptation. Or maybe they’ve redefined “forest” as only natural regeneration?
And how can Hansen say something so unequivocally (assuming he was quoted correctly) about something we don’t know and we know he doesn’t know. And he knows we know he doesn’t know. And so on. Anyway here’s the write-up on the Collaborative.
It seems like the reporters might have mentioned the tie with the funding. If it were an industry-funded scientist, would the Times have pointed it out? Just sayin’.
But what is that thing where East Coast outlets interview East Coast people about Western Interior issues? I’m waiting for them to interview University of Utah profs on Mamdani’s housing policies…
***************
Key Objectives
Making science actionable by ensuring the research agenda is responsive to decision-maker needs and that the best available science guides decision making and adaptation.
Identify the mechanisms that underpin forest resilience with experiments and field work. Understand and predict where, when, and why the risk of non-reversible forest loss is greatest.
Track the changing nature of forest conditions and fire regimes in the western US using legacy and state-of-the-art remote sensing platforms. During an era of unprecedented investment in proactive forest management, this will allow us to precisely measure progress.
Projecting forests and fire by feeding remote sensing data into forest models to determine how current and future stewardship actions may shape future outcomes.
Quantify impacts on people and nature. This includes biodiversity, air quality, carbon storage, and water. Our model will help us better project how and where ecosystem benefits will change, and how they might be impacted by different management strategies.
Steve posted about the NY Times story and when I first read it, I thought it would be a terrific piece to analyze from the sociology and philosophy of science perspective.
For me, with a background in what used to be called “forest biology” i.e., physiology and genetics of forest trees, it is an example of what some call disciplinary encroachment.
Now I want to be perfectly clear about one thing… this table from Google AI makes it sound intentional. Having observed my field for over 50 years, it’s much more systemic and incremental than that. I once went hunting for forest economists to answer a practical question and the ones with expertise were mostly retired, replaced with more abstract kinds of researchers (except for Extension, so thank you land grants!)
**************
I first noticed it when I was on a review of the Rocky Mountain Station in the 90’s. While I was supporting a project on fish genetics (it seems important to know how far they move, right?) the Assistant Director explained to me that organismal biology was basically unnecessary, and that “systems thinking” would obviate the need for it. This actually goes back to history of science, with mathematics being scientifically cooler than observations and the somewhat tacky world of organisms and dirt and blood. There’s a reason that “physics envy” is an expression.
Some research. and its definitions and categories, has grown increasingly abstract over time. For example, take mushroom collecting. You could call it “mushroom collecting” and study who does it and where, and maybe what that means for the relevant economies. Or the impacts, say on a forest in Wisconsin. Or you could call it “non-traditional forest products”. That was a popular category for most of my career. Now it is only a part of “ecosystem goods”- a term which also includes, I suppose, wheat from wheat fields. Then there are “ecosystem goods and services” which I guess can be studied, but it is hard for me to see any application at that level of abstraction.
******************
In other words, the scientists we hire and fund come with different approaches that can lead to different conclusions. We can examine the spatial and temporal scales they look at, and more specifically the places and times they look at, the tools they use (often the tools set up the scientific worldview, or does the scientific worldview choose the tools), and the definitions they use or categories. Then there’s how whether and how they use models. And how they specifically talk about the uncertainty associated with the findings of the study. That’s why I’m a bit skeptical when folks say “the science” says.. I would ask the above questions..
In most of my scientific career, even people in my own discipline did not agree on many things. And there is no grand funding or famousness to be found in my field, so being right or wrong does not carry the burden of affecting policy. So let’s analyze the Times story from this frame.
One of many conifers seedlings among the shrubs the Forest Service would like to eradicate using herbicide. (Scott Sady / For The Times)
We covered the Lassen National Forest Dixie Post-Fire herbicide issue as articulated by the Mother Jones article here. The article, and the people quoted, did not mention the restrictions easily found in the EA.
The LA Times has an interesting story comparing the views of Lake Tahoans to Butte County (Camp Fire) on that specific topic.. post-fire herbicide use. Shout-out to reporter Noah Haggerty for this report. Nice photos as well.
Increasingly severe wildfires — fueled by climate change and more than a century of forest mismanagement — have forced an environmental reckoning on mountain towns nestled in California’s Sierra Nevada. Their residents face difficult questions: Will some kind of forest grow back? And, if not, should humans intervene to make that happen? Two communities, 100 miles apart, may be choosing different answers
*********
“I’ll never see it like it was in my entire lifetime, and we need to be OK with that,” said Madeline Moritsch, who spent summers at her parents’ Tahoe cabin growing up and now lives in town. “It’s really sad … to lose connection to the forest, but then also, it is part of the forest life cycle. I have great trust that the forest is going to do what it’s going to do.”
In the Tahoe basin, opposition to the herbicide reached a fever pitch after an article chronicling the Forest Service’s use of the chemical across California appeared in Mother Jones magazine.
The agency had posted newspaper notices and sent emails mentioning herbicide use and seeking public input last year, but Tahoe residents said they had missed them or didn’t make much of them.
“We continue to welcome feedback from community members and appreciate the ongoing interest and involvement from the public,” the Forest Service said in a statement.
The controversy over reviving the forest is a shame, some say, because, done right, these projects can help restore the identity of forest towns and a feeling few have felt in decades: safety.
***********
About 100 miles northwest of the Tahoe Basin, lower down in the foothills, survivors of the epic 2018 Camp fire that destroyed the town of Paradise have a very different relationship with forest stewards.
The Butte County Fire Safe Council — made up of three dozen foresters, former firefighters and local fire survivors — has countless stories of working with local landowners to heal forests and reduce wildfire risk.
In a ride with four of them in one of the council’s heavy-duty white pick-ups, conversation is constantly interrupted as they point out areas across the county’s rugged wild lands that they’ve worked on.
More than a third of Butte County’s 1 million acres have burned over the past decade. That has made taking action and having tough conversations — including about herbicide — unavoidable.
Connor Gilmartin, the Fire Safe Council’s director of development, sympathized with residents in the Tahoe Basin. “It’d be completely reasonable that people feel slighted if they were to have something happening in their proverbial backyard without knowing about it,” he said. “It’s a non-option for us.”
The Fire Safe Council and forestry herbicide experts stressed that when herbicide is used, crews take significant precautions to protect ecosystems and communities. They post signs along trails and mix in dye so residents can see where the chemical has been used. It can’t be applied near streams and lakes.
Experts also said it is extremely unlikely for people using trails to get accidentally exposed to glyphosate levels that scientists deem unsafe.
************
Now when a fire ignites, it’s often high-intensity, devouring virtually everything in its path — including hundred-foot-tall trees.
After such a fire, shrubs that usually fight for scarce sunlight on the forest floor suddenly have it all day and take over.
It’s for this reason many experts say intervention is necessary if the forests are to grow back within the next several decades.
Without intervening, “the Forest Service is not getting a forest back. That’s pure and simple,” said Scott Stephens, UC Berkeley professor of fire science. Hoping fire stays out of the forest during its slow recovery process, “I would call that risky business,” he said.
To cut back on the shrubs and give the conifers a chance, Stephens said land managers have a few options: Goats, hand crews and herbicides.
Goats are great at munching up unwanted vegetation; however, if they aren’t introduced immediately, the goats are no match.
Land managers can also send in hand crews to take down shrubs with loppers, hoes and chainsaws. But that is labor intensive, and when a fire burns thousands of acres, the time and cost involved can be too high.
That leaves herbicides.
Of those, glyphosate is one of the few reasonably priced, effective and, many argue, comparatively safe herbicides that land managers can rely on for restoration work
****************
In the Tahoe Basin, the Caldor fire restoration plan outlines roughly 3,600 acres where the Forest Service could use ground crews to apply herbicide directly to shrubs — no aerial spraying.
“Even though it’s gotten a bad name because so much attention has been focused on it, it’s actually effective and comparatively benign,” Jon Souder, retired Oregon State University forestry professor, said of glyphosate.
Whether glyphosate causes cancer is still debated.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined it is not likely a human carcinogen. The cancer research arm of the World Health Organization says it probably is.
For many residents near Lake Tahoe, it’s not a risk worth taking.
*******
Then there’s a section about Maidu restoration in which it’s mentioned that they use herbicides to get rid of invasive species.
I see that you can argue it either way, California and its wildfires have so many cancer-causing chemicals already..e.g., this story on toxic carcinogens from the LA wildfires, or this on on 82% of Californians live in counties with unhealthy air. With that, you could go one of two ways – “we have enough carcinogens already (the status of glyphosate a a carcinogen is controversial but assuming the worst), I’d rather have shrublands than have one more use, even with restrictions.” Or “since we have so many already, given the amount and the restrictions, it’s no big deal.” Another way to look at it is personal choice. Choosing to eat barbecued meat, knowing it increases your cancer risk, for example is one thing, but having a carcinogen applied when you don’t know where is different. Perhaps there is a middle ground for glyphosate avoiders- to leave the warning signs up permanently.
Finally, there are probably Tahoans who are OK with it and Butte County residents who are concerned. Still Haggerty deserves credit for interviewing and listening to all sides.
The government should treat this situation as deeply threatening to the habitability of the West. But as heat and drought battered the region this spring, the federal government, utterly dismissive of climate change, was shredding an astonishing number of forest-related conservation efforts. At the end of March, the Trump administration introduced a reckless plan to restructure the Forest Service, gutting much of the scientific research into how we might mitigate the effects of climate change on public forests. The threatened (or in some cases, abandoned) studies looked at climate-related insect and tree disease and wildfire behavior essential to public safety.
Again, watch for elision, in this case restructuring (not necessarily affecting research programs) vs. zeroing it out (which would obviously have a substantial impact on all kinds of research). Plus, think about this, neither D nor R states are doing anything too differently about something “deeply threatening to the habitability of the west” which, to me, would draw into question whether they agree with Mr. Ferguson. And yes, states have responsibilities both in wildfire, in forest health, and in reforestation. You’d think an organization like the Western Governors might be interested in a situation “deeply threatening to the habitability of the West.” But hey, I know, it’s only an op-ed.
Efforts to make prescribed burns more effective in the face of climate change have also been slashed.
What does this even mean? I’d think targets of prescribed fire projects (reducing fuels, not killing lots of big trees, not escaping) are somewhat invariant to the predictions of climate models. Maybe not?
*****************
Given the ponderosa’s striking reputation for resilience, it’s possible that in a century or two some of these lost forests might make a comeback. But that depends on whether we humans can muster some resilience of our own. It will mean keeping alive our commitment to find more sustainable ways of living: increasing solar and wind power, retrofitting commercial buildings to make them more energy efficient and transitioning to electric vehicles.
Hmm. It seems like this individual has overlooked some other alternatives to dealing more directly with the issue, e.g. mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and planting trees.
“It’s awful, all our cars are breaking down!”
“Why don’t you increase the number of mechanics available?
“the only solution is to move everyone closer to where they want to go”
Another way I look at these stories is “I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I (Sharon) also know you don’t know what’s going to happen either, so why are you spouting off with such (unreasonable) assurance?
On my way to a volunteer gig this morning I stopped to take the above photo. I thought it would be interesting if people could send in their own photos of ponderosa regeneration from around the West.
To do this, or to load other photos in comments, here is the process I use to put a photo in a comment. It is very kludgy and maybe a more technologically adept TSW reader can suggest another approach.
Get a free account on WordPress.com
In your account, start a fake post. You will see a tab for “add media” somewhere (I use the classic editor of WordPress but you should see something like that even with the other version.)
Add your photo or photos.
You should have tabs that say “visual” and “code.”
Go to the code tab.
Copy the weird writing (it’s called html) and put it in your comment.
Voila, your photo should show up!
Please let me know if you have trouble with this approach, and certainly if there’s an easier way.
I’ll get back to what I’d intended to talk about last week… understanding mechanisms.. but since we were on the topic of reforestation, I thought it would be helpful if we could discuss this piece sent in by Anonymous. It’s from the outlet Mother Jones, who apparently recently combined with the Center for Investigative Reporting, with donors including the MacArthur Foundation and the New Venture Fund ( a D. affiliated dark money group). The reason I am pointing out the funding is it’s really not clear why a reforestation project would have attracted this kind of attention- other than some underlying political point. Which might be this one..
And finally, what would come of the Trump administration setting two key parts of its coalition—Big Agriculture, which embraces glyphosate, and the Make America Healthy Again crowd, which loathes it—on a collision course?
MAHA folks could also wonder why so much herbicide is sprayed in California on private land, which would be the erstwhile business of the State to regulate. Last I heard, California isn’t exactly a MAGA state.
Anyway, I have three major criticisms with the piece. the first is that they elide private and Forest Service activities (intentionally apparently); the second is that they express concerns about issues that are dealt with in the EA, without arguing that the restrictions in the EA are inadequate (which would be fine but more detailed). In fact, it sounds like maybe the reporter didn’t read the EA, let alone Appendix B where the restrictions are located. Finally we get the old saw (so to speak) “In short, a key rationale for spraying a disputed chemical in natural settings boils down to executives and regulators treating forests, including our national forests, as tree farms.” Like so may talking points, you can keep saying it, and certainly we can disagree about practices, but it’s not really true.
The title is We Are Bombarding America’s Forests with Roundup
With the tagline.. Scientists are wary of glyphosate. MAHA loathes it. And our yearlong investigation shows California is spraying it everywhere.
The story starts out personally, with the reporter driving by and observing the difference between natural recovery and private timberlands:
The towering trees were gone, but new saplings abounded—cedars, pines, firs, and more—scattered randomly amid the greenery, already a foot or two high. No such verdant revival is visible on the private timberland before me. No bees, no flowers—it’s a virtual dead zone where the only life consists of row upon row of manually planted, tightly packed conifer saplings, all less than a foot tall.
This is because, unbeknownst to most people, logging companies and the US Forest Service have been spraying massive amounts of herbicide in clear-cut and fire-ravaged forests of California—and throughout the nation. And not just any herbicide, but glyphosate, a potent and problematic weed killer best known by the brand name Roundup.
**************
Actually, I don’t think “logging companies” do spraying.. private forest owners, including corporate ones, do. But then private agriculturists and private gardeners do also.
My first hint of all this was a single word in a letter the Forest Service sent to me and my neighbors about a year and a half ago. Lassen, it said, was to be part of an ambitious new wildfire recovery project. This was welcome, as the fires had burned perilously close to our properties. Workers would remove selected trees, cull undergrowth, and set prescribed fires, as Native Americans have done for millennia to keep forests healthy and reduce the risk of megafires. The agency also would plant new trees where few had survived.
Then I came to the word “herbicides.” The Forest Service would, starting in spring 2026, spray glyphosate on some 10,000 acres of public land in Lassen to wipe out leafy plants and shrubs that might compete with replanted conifers, whose needles allow them to tolerate the chemical.
1.2.4 Need to Eradicate and Control Invasive Plant Species
Currently, there are 17 known and 1 suspected invasive plant species within the Project area. The SNFPA directs the Forest Service to manage invasive plants and prioritize the following objectives: (1) prevent new introductions of invasive species; (2) conduct early treatment of new infestations; and (3) contain or control established infestations.
The Lassen NF treats plants primarily with manual methods. Manual methods often require multiple visits annually and reduce the potential for seeds to spread, but they do not control the infestations that remain. Wildfires increase the spread of invasive plants. There is a need for additional methods of treatment, including herbicide treatment, to contain, control, and eradicate known priority infestations and to prevent establishment of new infestations of invasive plants.
So that was interesting. Then there’s the reforestation part.
So it sounds like the EA says 2700 acres not 10K. I wonder where the reporter found the other 7300.. maybe for invasive species? I guess there isn’t a ceiling for invasive species, but that’s not the reporter’s argument (which seems to be against glyphosate for reforestation).
It’s also not just glyphosate, which is also interesting, but the article singles out glyphosate. Note: I am glyphosate agnostic- to figure out what applications I would support depends on the needs and the alternatives, plus a great deal of reading.
“In the late 1990s, widespread spraying on US crops genetically engineered to withstand it helped propel the organics movement.” “Propelling” is carrying a lot of weight here. Wikipedia seems to think that in the US, the organic movement it started in the 1930s and 40s. Those of us who attended Berkeley in the 70’s remember the Berkeley Coop. Organic folks have never liked herbicides in general so why call out Roundup?
The Forest Service and private loggers say they use glyphosate because it helps commercially attractive conifers like pine and Douglas fir rebound faster after fires and timber harvests. It does so by killing deciduous trees, native shrubs, flowering plants, and anything else that might compete for water, nutrients, and sunlight. In short, a key rationale for spraying a disputed chemical in natural settings boils down to executives and regulators treating forests, including our national forests, as tree farms.
Again, in my primitive brain, loggers.. er.. log. They take woody material out of the woods. Private timber companies as well as any other private landowner spray. Plus in the EA there’s this..
When using herbicide, plantation-conifer seedlings and desired woody vegetation (e.g., black oak, alder, willow) will be avoided or shielded when spraying nearby.
Note how they think of non-commercial species as “desired woody vegetation.” Which doesn’t seem very tree-farmy to me.
And in their own words..
This seems like another NRV problem.. if the FS wanted the “Whatever Without Intervention” as a Desired Future Condition.. that would have been a different regulation (not the 2012 Planning Rule). They want to get trees back, which I think is good for carbon sequestration, wildlife, recreation, etc., plus historically there were ..trees.
To learn more about how widely glyphosate was being used and the risks of using it in places where people camp, forage, hike, hunt, and swim, I began by requesting all California spraying reports going back to 1990. My colleague Melissa Lewis and I analyzed more than 5 million records, and what we found was eye opening: Forest spraying, which practically nobody knows about, is happening at record levels. The amount applied annually in state forests—266,000 pounds of pure glyphosate in 2023, the latest year for which data was available—is nearly five times what it was two decades ago. And though far more glyphosate is sprayed on state croplands overall, forest uses have become the herbicide’s fastest-growing market in California.
I suppose illegal marijuana grows may use glyphosate as well, not sure that they would be in the records the reporters looked at. I tried to look online but most of the stories were about carbofuran and other pesticides. Maybe others know more?
Others, upset about the proposed spraying, wrote to the agency to register their opposition. They knew of the health concerns—studies suggesting glyphosate might contribute to ailments ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma to brain inflammation and metabolic and liver problems in children. There’s a growing body of evidence, too, suggesting it disrupts the gut microbiome, with implications for chronic disease. (Bayer disputes these findings and says glyphosate safety is “supported by one of the most extensive bodies of research.”)
Again, I’m a glyphosate agnostic, but they do sell it at the Home Depot in Susanville and Redding, so there is a danger of getting exposed elsewhere than on a conifer plantation. Those interested may check out the details of the rules for administering herbicides in Appendix B of the EA.
As my reporting proceeded, the questions kept piling up: Is glyphosate as safe for humans as Bayer insists? Does it really help forests bounce back after fires or, conversely, might it leave them more susceptible? And finally, what would come of the Trump administration setting two key parts of its coalition—Big Agriculture, which embraces glyphosate, and the Make America Healthy Again crowd, which loathes it—on a collision course?
Those tensions have been there since the beginning of the Trump Admin, and I don’t think the Lassen’s 2700 acres of reforestation has much to do with it. Then there are many paragraphs about Monsanto.
The Forest Service’s 2011 risk assessment, which broadly depicts glyphosate as posing no significant threat to people and the environment, references Williams’ 2000 article 27 times—more than any other peer-reviewed paper, often to refute studies that raised health concerns. In fact, five of the seven most-cited journal articles in the report were either directly orchestrated by Monsanto or written by authors with financial ties to the company.
The only potential human risk acknowledged in the Forest Service’s assessment has to do with people unknowingly ingesting glyphosate after foraging for mushrooms and plants in recently sprayed areas. That’s a problem not just for foragers like me, but for anyone who has ever eaten a chanterelle, morel, or porcini mushroom, none of which can be farmed. Stores and restaurants purchase them from permitted commercial foragers who collect them in wild places, including the Lassen National Forest.
Yet in the EA, they put up signs to keep people out.
Signs will be posted at public access points to treatment areas at the time of herbicide application and remain in place for two weeks after application. Posted signs will include the herbicides being used, application dates, reentry periods, and a contact name and phone number. When the herbicide label specifies a reentry period or restricted entry interval, signs will also include warnings and the required timeframe during which entry is prohibited.
Again, this is a bit of a theme.. what seems concerning at one level, by some, may not be as concerning when you dive deeper.
Hayman Fire, 20 years later, photo 9news.com. Good for grass, not so good for trees.
I’d like to focus on reforestation for a bit, that is the simple (but sometimes difficult) act of planting trees and helping them make it to maturity. The end result doesn’t really matter.. shade, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, wood products.. you name it – they all require shade-worthy trees. Some species, like pinyon or juniper, don’t have that much shade, but still.. let’s not over-analyze or over-complicate things.
There are also cultural differences about the ways different disciplines at different times approach thinking about the issue of planting trees. These differences promulgate via funding to the end-game of “what the science says”.. when many disciplinary or cultural or philosophical points of view are invisible to the reader, but deeply imbedded in the approach taken and the conclusions drawn.
Two examples today. The first is a comment by Second Law yesterday:
Natural reforestation is a slow process that moves through stages including dominance by non-conifers, and eventual conifer dominance. If we define slow reforestation as a failure, then herbicides will be required, but if we accept natural processes, it will produce Forests that are more biodiverse and more heterogeneous.
That would be nice, but in some places it doesn’t seem to be happening that way. I can kind of understand the ideas of stages, and how important that was seen to be based on research on the West Side (as I recall). Still, if all the Mom trees are burned up (pollen can travel pretty far), there are unlikely to be baby trees without intervention of some kind. We used to know that seed only travels so far, and that bearclover fields or grass fields don’t provide the bare mineral soil that we used to think were good conditions for conifer regeneration.
Bearclover’s rhizomes efficiently gather soil moisture and together with high rates of photosynthesis promote rapid growth and site capture. Using all available water limits species richness, and the plant community in established stands is limited to a few hardy species. Above-ground stem density of bearclover also is high.
So it doesn’t sound like the statement “accept natural processes the forests will be more biodiverse” isn’t true in this case. So a person could wonder “where is it true”? And if herbicides are not natural, I suppose vexar isn’t either. And neither is planting at all, in some sense.
********
Sidenote: Since there is an EO about more timber production, then why does the President’s Budget zero out FS R&D -who do the work to figure out all things tree-related? I’d sure give that person at OMB (or whomever) a piece of my mind on Administrational consistency.
**********
The next piece came across my desk from an argument for the importance of FS R&D.
As climate change alters suitable habitat conditions for tree species, especially Douglas-fir, existing conifer forests will be unlikely to survive and thrive. Research addressing barriers to assisted population migration is crucial. Research shows that for some western species, their best habitats 60-100 years from now will be 200-400 miles NNW and perhaps up to 2,000 feet higher in elevation than their existing best habitats. Seed collection from healthy, thriving stands today need to be used to grow seedlings that are planted in much different locations to survive and thrive 6-10 decades from now.
Like I said yesterday, having experienced “off-site” plantings, as well as the ponderosa elevational transect study, forest geneticists of my generation tended to be fairly conservative about seed zones and breeding zones. Research on conifers also showed that there are epigenetic adaptive capacities as well as long-range pollen transport. For me, anyway, it is the height of hubris to move seed 200 to 300 miles based on computer models of computer modeled futures. Not to speak of the fact that the model outputs change over time, see this post:
Big news: The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades — specifically, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0. This is an absolutely huge development in climate science which will have lasting impacts across research and policy.
The future is not what it used to be.
It’s easy to change model parameters (well probably not that easy) but you can’t uproot saplings when model outputs change and start over.
Some of us geneticists would probably say “run the downscaled models and if it says the area will be hotter and drier, calculate the preferred stand density at maturity, and mix in some seedlings from adjacent zones so that there will be enough trees at maturity.” Seedlings tend to be planted at a higher density than ultimately needed, and natural selection will have a chance to work. At the same time, if the local sources have enough inherent adaptive capacities to deal with climate changes, they will be there in great enough numbers as well.
It’s not that complicated. And I’m giving the advice for free.
People running the models might not be familiar with some conifer adaptation mechanisms, such as these studies in Norway Spruce:
Johnsen Ø, Daehlen OG, Østreng G, Skrøppa T. 2005a. Daylength and temperature during seed production interactively affect adaptive performance of Picea abies progenies. New Phytologist 168: 589–596.
Johnsen Ø, Fossdal CG, Nagy N, Molmann J, Dælen OG, Skrøppa T. 2005b. Climatic adaptation in Picea abies progenies is affected by the temperature during zygotic embryogenesis and seed maturation. Plant, Cell & Environment 28: 1090–1102
**********
It used to be popular to study mechanisms- in the above case, for example, “how do conifers adapt?”. Today it seems more popular in some disciplines to study from satellite photos and models, find correlations, then make assumptions about what causes and effects are. This is despite the old scientific saying that correlation is not causation. It also seems that many have a (to me) remarkable lack of curiosity about mechanisms.. leaving that for someone else to figure out, I guess. Except that if the funding isn’t there to study mechanisms, we’ll live in a land of correlations and assumptions- and be unable to improve practices in the real world. But maybe that’s not the point. But then we could ask “what is?” More examples next time.
In 2007, the Angora Fire burned through this landscape overlooking Lake Tahoe. Taken in 2022, this image and researcher surveys show that, even 19 years later, most of the burned area continues to support very few or no tree seedlings. (Hugh Safford/UC Davis)
This came across my X feed shortly after I posted the prior piece on reforestation. Maybe Jim and I should start the Geezers’GRAN Reforestation Advocacy Network.. conveniently the acronym would be GRAN… would be better with a D at the end.
From UC Davis..
Wildfire-Driven Deforestation Rates in California Among Highest in World
Reforestation Efforts Fall Far Behind Rate of Loss
Here’s a link.
I think we knew most of this, but it’s interesting that Canada has taken a different approach.
The team found that on Forest Service lands only about 8% of high-priority areas and less than 3% of acute-priority areas were reforested during the entire study period. Between 2016 and 2023, only about 1% of deforested Forest Service lands were replanted. In contrast, on private industrial timberlands, more than 90% of severely burned lands were replanted.
Fire-driven reforestation needs
The state’s greatest reforestation needs are in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests and Northern California Douglas-fir forests, especially areas hit by the massive 2020 and 2021 wildfires: the northern Inner Coast Ranges, the northern Sierra Nevada–southern Cascades, and the southwestern Sierra Nevada.
While middle-elevation forests experienced the greatest losses, high-elevation forests showed the fastest increases in deforestation.
Those rates are right up there with the world’s leaders in fire-driven forest loss.” — Hugh Safford, UC Davis
The paper noted that federal budgets and staffing for reforestation have been dropping for decades, even as drought, wildfire and pest outbreaks increase. This is in contrast to Canada, where similar trends have led to increases in budgets for reforestation science and management. Without sustained, substantial intervention, current restoration efforts will not be enough to prevent the long-term transformation of California’s forest ecosystems.
“California has much more fire-driven forest loss than people understand,” Safford said. “It’s high even by international standards. It’s happening more in high-elevation, climate-sensitive areas that protect our watersheds, and there’s almost nothing being done about it. If commensurate actions aren’t taken soon, we’re going to lose huge areas of conifer forest and the ecosystem services those forests provide.”
One problem is that in some places in California, successful reforestation (at least in the day) required herbicide treatments. In one place I visited in the last few years, Tribal folks didn’t want herbicide use, while the neighboring industry land had successful reforestation with herbicides. That adds another complexity.. where experts and studies would be handy. Or maybe that’s not an issue in California at the present. Maybe it’s just the bucks. Or key NGOs are busy scaling up?
I think the FS should decide itself to be the leader with expertise in both planning and implementation (and carry through), with partners for sure. We were there once, and the FS could be there again. With interagency agreements with Interior agencies.
How many experts do we need, of what kind? Should they be permanent federal employees or grantees’ hires or contractors? This job ad came across my virtual desk, for a part-time expert at a consulting firm. Back in the day, when the FS took reforestation seriously, we had people focused on the technical aspects of genetics, nurseries, field treatment of seedling pre- and post planting, who were permanent employees. We even had the office people have a field day pulling up vexar (on the Ochoco). We had an entire team of experts working directly on this. In this job advertisement, it seems to me that the contractor is expecting quite a bit from one part-time (temporary?) employee.
If the seed orchard managers are hired by American Forests, and the reforestation planning is done by part-time contractors, it seems like the organizational equivalent of random acts of reforestation by random people in random combinations. In the 80’s. the Ochoco, Deschutes, Fremont and Winema (before comboing) identified planting ponderosa on drier sites as a problem and shared one full-time reforestation specialist as well as a geneticist (me). FWIW, I think each group of four forests- at least- should have its own reforestation expertise and access to a geneticist (perhaps in a national services group, the last I counted R2 and 3 had zero, and R6 had several).
As folks have gotten concerned about FS R&D one of the concerns is that long-term research is important, and isn’t funded by NIFA nor NSF. But isn’t it just as, or more important for practitioners to build up knowledge over time?
***********************
About the job
IEM is seeking a Part-TimeReforestation Subject Matter Expert (SME) to support our continued growth. The Reforestation SME provides specialized technical expertise to support wildfire recovery and long‑term forest restoration efforts. This role requires deep knowledge of Rocky Mountain ecosystems, post‑fire ecological processes, and evidence‑based reforestation practices. The SME will support the development of defensible technical assessments and SME reports used to substantiate claimant recovery amounts in alignment with program guidelines.
Primary Location:
Live within the United States including any US territory
Work from a personal/home office location
Travel Requirements
This position may require travel to complete work assignments or attend meetings/trainings.
Essential Functions
Design and oversee reforestation projects in areas affected by wildfire, with a focus on ecological restoration and long-term forest health.
Conduct site assessments to determine soil stability, species suitability, and prioritize areas for intervention based on ecological and community needs.
Collaborate with land managers, government agencies, community stakeholders, and non-profit partners to develop reforestation plans tailored to Rocky Mountain landscapes.
Provide technical guidance on seed collection, native species selection, planting techniques, and post-planting care specific to post-wildfire recovery in the region.
Monitor project outcomes, adapt management strategies, and report on progress and ecological impacts.
Deliver training and workshops for field personnel and community volunteers on wildfire reforestation methods and safety protocols.
Minimum Qualifications
Degree: Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in Forestry, Ecology, Environmental Science, or a related field.
Experience: Ten (10) years of combined experience in reforestation, wildfire recovery, land restoration, forestry, or related ecological disciplines.
Demonstrated expertise with Rocky Mountain ecosystems, native species, and post‑wildfire regeneration practices.
Strong working knowledge of:
Wildfire ecology and burn severity effects
Forest succession
Soil stabilization and watershed dynamics
Native plant communities of the Rocky Mountain region
Experience preparing technical assessments, valuation summaries, or SME reports related to ecological losses and restoration costs.
Proficiency using GIS, remote sensing platforms, and ecological monitoring tools.
Excellent written and verbal communication skills; ability to explain technical findings to claimants, FEMA staff, and diverse stakeholders.
Ability to work safely in remote, rugged terrain and variable weather conditions.
Strong customer‑service approach when interacting with claimants and community members.
Preferred Qualifications
Experience collaborating with federal and state land management agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM, NRCS).
Certification or training in forestry, ecological restoration, fire ecology, or similar fields (e.g., SAF Certified Forester, Society for Ecological Restoration credentials).
Knowledge of climate adaptation strategies in forest recovery and long‑term resilience planning.
Experience with grant development, project budget creation, or multi‑stakeholder restoration partnerships.
********************
Here’s the company floating the position (IEM):
IEM is a professional services firm dedicated to building a safe, secure, and resilient world. Since 1985, our innovative strategies, technologies, and solutions have helped government and private sector customers achieve measurable results—lives saved, communities resiliently rebuilt, risks reduced, and preparedness increased. For over 40 years, IEM’s skilled professionals have been committed to integrating science, technology, and real-world experience to develop smart, innovative solutions that truly solve each customer’s unique problem. Our list of customers includes federal agencies like the DHS, DOD, FEMA, HUD, SBA; state and local emergency management organizations in all 50 US states and 4 territories; critical infrastructure including nuclear power plants, chemical plants, hospitals, mass transit agencies, ports, and others. Representative IEM projects include: –Program Manager for the State of New York’s disaster recovery housing program after Hurricane Sandy –Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program support to State of New York after Hurricane Sandy –Supporting FEMA response planning since 2003 –Preparedness support to 10 major metropolitan regions of Critical National Importance –Developed and applied unique, scenario-based planning process to support rapid, regional planning for catastrophic hurricanes in Louisiana (Hurricane Pam) and Florida and a catastrophic earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone –Developed epidemiological models helping to reduce the risk of casualties associated with potential bioterrorism attacks –Developed web-based emergency management and response system for a federal program –Support research and development of defensive CBRNE systems for the U.S. Army –Exercise and real-time ground support for air evacuations during disaster response evacuations since 200
You may be curious as to from whom IEM got the contract to do this work (which I would call “inherently governmental” but..). I looked it up as usual on USA Spending.gov but found the site impenetrable as always. Chat GPT tried a bit and ended up with my guess, that FEMA was probably funding it as part of wildfire recovery.
Maybe I’m the only one, I’m all for state and NGO partnerships, but I’d think that the expertise should be intentionally housed at the FS (or a shared service with BLM where appropriate) to inform those contracts and grants?
Reforestation isn’t the only thing, soil science, economics, wildlife, fish, engineering and so on. I don’t think you can contract or grant well if you don’t have experts on your staff.
Further, wildfires and wildfire recovery are big bucks nowadays. But agencies could…coordinate who has expertise and use inter-agency agreements.. seems to me. It would minimize gaps, overlaps and wheel reinvention.
