Reforestation

I wrote about this awhile back, in terms of seed orchard manager positions, formerly held by FS employees with the development of long-term knowledge and experience, to hiring by American Forests.  Now, some of my best colleagues work for American Forests, and at the same time I have concerns, as I would for any organization that takes chunks from the FS workload via grants.

1.  As a former FS employee who worked in reforestation, I wonder where the decision to outsource an FS program was made?  As I recall when other parts of the FS were outsourced, say fleet, the work was open to competitive bids.  As far as I can tell, the decision was not documented, and AF at the time, had most experience in urban forests and not so much in wildland reforestation.  So why..
   1. Farm out an important “growingly important due to climate change” part of the Forest Service- a part where long-term, on-the-ground knowledge is important? Why not wildland fire (to a non-competitive NGO?) or engineering, or recreation? Even the Park Service competes its concessionaires.
   2. Why has there not been more (any) press coverage of this asking these questions and about the accompanying reduction in federal employees?  After all, we are exposed to a constant barrage of “the FS got rid of people” being bad; at the same time one point of contracting out (or  “granting out”) is to reduce the workforce= because other people are actually doing the work.
   3. Why has there been no apparent concern by the federal employees’ union (or at least not mentioned in the press).  I could be wrong about this, so would like to hear from the union if that’s not the case.
   4. Why has neither political party been interested in this trend, or at least interested enough to request information on how much money has been spent and what has been accomplished?  Again, I would think that R’s might be interested in the non-competitive part and accomplishments, and the D’s in the reduction in FS employees, but it doesn’t seem anyone at all is interested. And yet, the Forest Service is in charge of the national forests and reforestation is key for some areas remaining in forest.  What could be more important to keep in-house?
2.  I have a a bit of direct experience that leads me to additional concerns:
3. 1. Reforestation is a white-hatted issue .. why would an organization farm out it’s white-hatted issues and keep the other kind (mines, roads, etc.)  Again, compare this with wildfire.
   2. I’ve seen coverage that highlights speakers wearing AF gear, and FS employees in the background or not there at all.  Wouldn’t we want FS folks to be out front? Why not?
   3. The AF office wanted workers to do things that I didn’t think were the best use of joint funding.. is there anyone left in the FS knowledgeable enough to push back (or are there internal forces against pushing back)?
   4. Some AF folks appear to have little or no background in the body of work around reforestation. Perhaps that’s the FS’s own fault for letting too much of it go.  However, I did see them promoting ideas that were rejected in the past apparently unaware of those conversations. Are we paying them to learn what employees already know- plus covering percentages off the top?
   5. If it’s so important to farm out  a big chunk of work (and I’d argue some other Keystone work) to NGOs, why hasn’t the BLM done it?  Is this an argument for moving the FS to the (possibly more business-like) Interior?
4.  Related-  if we look at American Forests, we see that what drives them are Social Equity, Climate, Water and Wildlife.
   1. Reforestation can have climate and social equity elements, but much of it on wildlands is plain old tree planting, genetics and nurseries, what RNGR provides the technical information for, and the programs that Forest Service employees and contractors used to conduct themselves.
   2. What value is added by introducing an NGO (and associated grants and agreements work, and NGO overhead)  to a system that seems to have been working?

It’s interesting to me that Congress asked for a report on transferring the FS from USDA to Interior (and the FS is contracting out that work, apparently).  But no Congressperson cared that a Forest Service program was more or less outsourced without competition, or public documentation or analysis?  Like I said, AF is a great group, but is it effective and efficient use of USG resources for USG purposes?

It does seem ironic to me that part of this $28-37 an hour position is to do an annual report of accomplishments.. and yet in my reaching out to various NGO’s with jointly hundreds of millions of USG bucks, I was unable to get annual accomplishment reports of where the bucks were going, and any accomplishments, and had to FOIA to get them.

To the FS, if you think this is a great way to run a government program, by farming out work non-competitively, I’d ask you to make the business case… somewhere AND develop public reporting mechanisms.  At first, I thought this was just a Biden Admin idea to stash IRA funds, but if the approach is supposed to be long-term- perhaps some attention to justification and transparency would be desirable.

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

Below are the duties in the advertisement. Until recently, as I’ve said, this would have been a Forest Service position.

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

Management of Seed Orchards and Seed Production Areas (70-85%)

• • Managing orchards, seed production areas, native plant production areas at the Francis Marion GRMA.

• • Managing orchards to produce cone and acorn crops, monitoring phenology, collecting, processing and shipping cones and acorns.

• • Managing seed orchard health, diversity and productivity.

• • Control of weeds and orchard understory and dead tree removal.

• • Application of herbicides and pesticides.

• • Operation and maintenance of tractor & skid steer with implements, tree shaker, lift boom and other heavy equipment.

• • Contracting and coordinating orchard operations such as thinning, road maintenance, and fencing.

• • Assisting with writing genetic management strategies.

• • Application of fertilization regimes to meet project objectives.

• • Monitoring for insect and disease damage, determining treatment options, and implementing treatments.

• • Establishing new seed orchard plantings.

• • Propagating and cultivating plant species used in revegetation projects (e.g., rivercane).

• • Propagating and cultivating native plant species with conservation or cultural significance

• • Collecting and grafting of scion to rootstock and out-planting.

• • Establishing and maintaining tree conservation plantings.

• • Collecting soil or foliar samples for nutrient analysis and interpreting results.

• • Collecting, maintaining, and managing data gathered on orchard trees and cone crops.

• • Recording growth and phenology measurements.

• • Managing facilities and equipment associated with seed orchards.

• • Assisting the USDA Forest Service in developing work plans for the GRMA and production or quality standards.

• • Maintaining and updating Seed Orchard Management Plan and Seed Orchard Technical Training Guides.

• • Mapping and tagging trees in the orchard.

• • Creation of annual reports outlining orchard activities and accomplishments

Management of Progeny Field Tests (0 – 15%)

• • Managing progeny field tests in partnership with USDA Forest Service silviculturists.

• • Maintaining and monitoring for damaging agents and determining the need for control methods.

• • Monitoring growth for cone production.

• • Monitoring insects and diseases or other genetically controlled damaging agents.

• • Collecting soil and foliage samples.

Partnership & Coordination (10%)

• • Serving as the on-site liaison between American Forests and the USDA Forest Service.

• • Coordinating closely with Forest Service staff, including regional geneticist, zone geneticist, line officers and silviculturists, to align seed production goals with regional and national priorities.

• • Submitting timely progress reports, data summaries, and documentation, as needed.

• • Participating in regional meetings and events as needed to support reforestation and seed strategy goals

• • Participating in training and safety meetings

• • Maintaining compliance with environmental guidelines.

Other Duties as Assigned (5%):

• • Reviewing, recommending, and initiating development activities at the GRMA in cooperation with the Regional Geneticist. Preparing presentations and/or reports to explain overall genetic resource management and seed orchards.

• • Assisting with developing budgetary needs.

• • Co-hosting seed orchard management workshops.

• • Assisting American Forests’ staff in the delivery of relevant in-person meetings, conferences, and events.

• • Conducting public presentations at conferences and meetings.

• • Planning and leading site visits and field tours as appropriate.

Based on this post, a new study finds:

Overall, the researchers found that tree planting can enhance post-fire forest recovery rates, though its effects are dependent on a range of environmental and operational factors.

Researchers discovered that 79.5% of planted trees survived at least one summer, but success is heavily influenced by the planting season and moisture availability. Cold and wet areas experienced higher rates of forest cover change and early seedling survival due to reduced moisture stress.

Planting in spring and early summer (before June 30) was most effective in these regions, while late-season planting was better suited for warm, dry areas where aridity limits seedling establishment.

Post-planting weather also played a significant role: moderate to wet conditions improved survival by up to 20%, while warm, dry conditions reduced it. These findings underscore the importance of environmental conditions and seasonal timing in reforestation success.

A few weeks ago, I was out and about with Forest Service and NGO folks currently working in reforestation.  Some forests more than others kept up their facilities and knowledge about seed procurement and reforestation, during the years when reforestation was out of fashion.  For 40 years or so, at least in some Regions, there has been downplaying of the need to plant trees in favor of hoping for the best via natural regeneration.  As was known at the time, some species are terrific at regeneration and some not so much, in different places.  If you don’t have parent trees around, there’s going to be a lack of seed.  We knew quite a bit about how all of that works and what the key factors were (and probably now continue to be).  Since that time, some of the following discussions have occurred:

Reforestation is not restoration (!) . Indeed it’s not, but if you want trees of some species, you need to plant them, if they don’t regenerate naturally.  Trees aren’t everything, but people, wildlife and watersheds tend to like them.  And what is “restoration” anyway? Restoration to what exactly at what spatial scale with what dynamics?  Why is it that goals have become more nebulous, and more difficult, as time has gone on. Used to be species protection, now it’s “biodiversity” which could be anything (and is pretty much defined that way).  Used to be planting trees, now it’s “ecosystem restoration” which perhaps can never be achieved, depending on your definition.

If  trees don’t naturally regenerate, it’s due to climate change.  If you actually believed this, why bother?  If we thought that 40 years ago, many stands would not exist today.

Climate change is going to kill all the trees anyway.  You’ll see that, but then how can keeping trees around be justified as a long-term natural climate solution.  In terms of reforestation, it’s a natural “que sera, sera” approach to management.

These seem all fairly negative ways of choosing to look at the world.  Planting trees is not good enough, they won’t survive due to climate change, and they’ll all die anyway.   As I said to one person on our trip “all we can do is the best we can, knowing what we know today, and being flexible as new information comes online.”  But looking back on it, we are also standing on the shoulders of those who came before us, and we can learn from them.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that this renewed interest in reforestation hasn’t been accompanied by what I consider to be the right kind of investment.  For whatever reason,  people trying to plant trees today don’t have as much technical support as we did in the 80’s.   For example, when I worked in South-Central Oregon, we had an area reforestation specialist.  In the 80’s it was already thought to be difficult to get planted trees to survive, so we invested in a) figuring out what worked, b) sharing the information and c) building needed infrastructure and knowledge capacity in the Forest Service.  Maybe the Pacific Northwest Station of the Forest Service and Oregon State University are thinking of reupping an Oregon-wide Fundamental FIR- ish (Southwest Oregon Forestry Intensified Research Program) program?  Maybe they already have, but the folks I spoke with didn’t know about it?

The difference would be that it would be focused on reforestation (natural and artificial) and early stand establishment, maybe preferentially post-fire and be Oregon-wide (not just Southwest).  Or maybe the West side doesn’t need it.

But maybe the academic community hasn’t gotten the message that figuring out how best to plant trees is cool again? There’s quite a bit of information out there, but much of it is hidden in the nooks and crannies of the internet.  Is someone rounding it up? Interviewing retired reforestation professionals?  My point is that many things used to be known and may not need to be reinvented.

Jon asked some questions about nurseries, and so I went looking to answer the question “what kind of nurseries are there that produce forest tree seedlings?” It turns out that the Forest Service has partnered with Southern Regional Extension Forestry to put up a website that shows nurseries in the US and Canada, . So I’m posting in the interests of public service.

Jon asked about the terms reforestation and restoration.  The Helms (1998) Dictionary of Forestry definition for reforestation is: “the reeestablishment of forest cover either naturally or artificially.” Anyone have the newer edition and can check if there’s a new definition?  But I think when these people use the term, they probably mean “planting plants that aren’t trees” because reforestation has traditionally dealt with trees (“forest cover” doesn’t usually mean bear clover or manzanita.  It’s confusing for sure, as people have always “reforested” burned areas whether they had timber production goals or simply shade goals. And if you’re talking outside what we might call the refo/resto community, restoration may mean prescribed fire, thinning, removing invasives or a variety of things not related to planting plants at all.

Ah, but people will say “trees are not forests, forests are a complex interrelationship…”. While is absolutely true, of course. So perhaps trees are necessary, but not sufficient to be part of a forest. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine “restoring a forest ecosystem” without trees.

Afforestation is defined as “establishment of a forest or stand in an area where the preceding vegetation or land use was not forest.”

Trivia Question

Name the largest human-made forest in the United States (at least according to its website)

I posted Matthew Burgess’s work that shows 90% of people support tree planting.  But there are still controversies about it, that we will explore.  I think to some extent they are what we might call “manufactured controversies” or controversies that occur within the realm of “ideas about things at some global level” vs. “do we support planting these trees here now.”  How does something non-controversial become controversial? Well, it’s in the nature of current media to stoke controversy. If you want a truly depressing read, I recommend “Trust Me, I’m Lying” by Ryan Holiday. So let’s explore that together.

I’d like to start with my Five P’s. This might appeal to fans of the Pyramid of Pristinity.  It works for basically any natural resource topic, and helps us to understand the factors that are used in making judgment calls about whether doing something is a good thing.. or not. Feel free to add your own P or other consideration.

1.People.  Which people are proposing it and which benefit?  Some people have the benefit of the doubt and others not so much.  For example, Tribes might have the benefit of the doubt with regard to say, whitebark pine restoration.  But maybe not other Tribes who want pipelines or whatever. E.g., this Denver Post story from October 15. It’s a pretty interesting article;  hope it’s not paywalled.

“The Southern Ute Indian Tribe of southwestern Colorado has a higher long-term credit rating than Wells Fargo & Co. and more oil and natural-gas wells than it has members. Welcome to the other side of the tribal land energy conundrum.”

Sometimes this is brought up by people against projects, such as “foreign” companies.

2.  Purpose.  Why is the project being considered?  Thinning is good, for example, if it’s for fuels reduction, but bad if it produces “commercial” products.  I understand the concern that the Forest Service is incentivized by Congress to do timber sales, and that does affect priorities and practices.  For example, let’s look at firewood. Do we think that firewood permits for people are good, but for commercial folks are bad? But commercial folks supply to folks who perhaps can’t get out and do it themselves, due to disability or age. To me concerns about “lining the pockets of the rich” seem to be focused on forest products and oil and gas, and not so much ski areas, for example.

3. Practices.  This is where I, and many folks, like to dwell.  If we look at the history of forest certification.  With FSC, for example, that was the idea that wood products from forests would be considered good (sustainable) if certain practices were followed, to some extent regardless of purpose or people.  Forest certification has been successful, but there continue to be people who are against cutting trees regardless of purpose or practice.  And that’s OK, the point is to clarify the reasons people feel the way they do.

4. Place.  Some things may be acceptable in some places than others. Place, to my mind,  is a complex mix of people, Nature and history. People and Place are certainly related, but People within a Place can and do often disagree. Additionally, there are concepts of what People means, in terms of say race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender and so on, that transcend a specific Place.

5. Property.  This is a bit different from place, in the sense that we might want different things from say, private, county, state or various designations of federal lands.

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

There are also two non-Ps

Where do the controversies occur (media, scientific journals, within agencies)?

Are there institutions or mechanisms for resolution of these controversies?

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

So let’s look at Tribes restoring whitebark versus previous efforts. Note: there has been a large body of effort, in both the Pacific Northwest and in the Northern Rockies, to breed resistant whitebark pine despite the fact it has never been a timber tree. It began in 2001 in the northern Rockies according to this paper.

Or you might remember the hard-working folks who developed a Range-Wide Restoration Strategy, a RMRS GTR in 2012.

Anyway, if you weren’t following this, there was some debate about whether planting trees is “trammeling by man” in Wilderness.

Some of the 50 people in the audience scoffed as they pointed to the section of the Wilderness Act that defines wilderness as an area “untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” They argued that nowhere on the planet now escapes the influence of man, so planting trees shouldn’t be a big deal.

But Jimmy Gaudry, USFS Northern Region wilderness program manager, said it might be a big deal, depending on how many other groups want to manipulate the wilderness for their special purpose.

“It’s the concept of a death of a thousand cuts. One thing after another, we’re making concessions for the types of activities we’re approving in wilderness landscapes,” Gaudry said. “It gets to the point where what are we doing different in the wilderness versus what we’re doing on the rest of the forest. Every time we say yes to something, why are we saying yes to that and not the next thing that comes through the door?”

Gaudry said he encouraged the discussion, but a more neutral process was needed, where trust could be built between stakeholders and where people would do a better job of listening to each other.

But for now, the Forest Service would lean on policy and law, which provides “solid direction regarding wilderness management,” Guadry said.

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

So here we have it.. restoring whitebark pine is generally a good thing, because People want it; it has a Purpose everyone agrees on; it’s an acceptable technology (Practice) and we think it will work in that Place; but our understanding of Property in terms of Wilderness means it’s a no-go.

So let’s look at the non-Ps-

Controversy occurs within the FS/stakeholder community

Controversy is resolved by the Forest Service.