The Power Fire, Six Years Later

This wildfire, on the Amador Ranger District, of the Eldorado National Forest. was sparked by crews cutting hazard trees along powerlines. I was a Sale Administrator, detailed to help salvage timber and accomplish contract work over 55% of the burned area. New marking guidelines, ordered by the courts, were first used on this project. While the plans survived a lower court challenge, the infamous Ninth Circuit Court decided that the new guidelines were “confusing” and more analysis regarding the blackbacked woodpecker was needed.

Here is what one of the cutting units looks like today. Choked with deerbrush, with not much in the way of conifers established.

This picture shows the striking contrast of Forest Service, versus private timberlands. You can clearly see the property lines and the section corner. What you cannot see is the accelerated erosion that came off the private lands, impacting the road at the bottom of the picture. Between the deerbrush and the the thick bear clover, conifers have little chance to recover, and a re-burn might be in the future for this patch of Federal land. The upper tract of Federal land seems to have no standing snags left, due to blowdown. The rest of the area seems to be choked with snags that died since harvesting was completed. At least SOME of the fuels for a future wildfire have been significantly reduced.

This area has a history of Indian occupation, and the forest still shows it. The bear clover re-grew and covered the bare soil within 6 months. Today, people would be hard-pressed to find ANY logging damage, on this side of the fire area. What really amazed me is that this project has ALREADY suffered a re-burn. The fuels reduction definitely saved the remaining old growth from burning to a crisp. This forest has its resilience back, has a better species composition, and seems ready for a regular program of prescribed fire.

As you can see, the light and the weather didn’t cooperate. I’m sure I will be going back to capture some more images, and to compare them to the photos I took six years ago.

Webinar: The Undesirable Guide to Forest Restoration

This came in from Dan Binkley at Colorado State University as a response to Dave, but I think it deserves its own post.

I thought I’d mention an idea that Megan Matonis and I are trying to develop and advocate: undesirable conditions as a guide to forest stewardship. We’ll be presenting a webinar on Friday this week that might be of interest (and we hope you might join in) — here’s the announcement:

The Southern Rockies Fire Science Network (SRFSN) with presenters Dan Binkley (Professor of Forest Ecology at Colorado State University) and Megan Matonis (PhD student at CSU, and Intern with the Rocky Mountain Research Station) are pleased to present:

SRFSN Webinar: The Undesirable Guide to Forest Restoration

Forest management has a long legacy of successfully (and unsuccessfully) designing forests for well-defined purposes. “Command and Control” approaches work well for tree farms with the singular goal of wood production, but the nature of complex forests is not well suited to this type of forecasting and engineering. “Desired Conditions” is closely related to Command and Control, and probably not very suitable for restoration of complex forests for uncertain futures. Perhaps the most fruitful approach is to identify Undesirable Conditions, and then work collaboratively to move away from the risk of the most egregious futures, and accepting a wide variety of future forests that will develop ecologically on our landscapes.

When: Friday, May 11 from 10:00-11:00 mountain time.

Who: Fire and vegetation practitioners, conservation planners, landscape planners, GIS professionals.

How: Register at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/352070905
You will then receive a confirmation email from “Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center” with information about joining the webinar.

SAF credit: The SRFSN will apply for SAF credit for continuing education by submitting the names of participants.

Questions: Contact Megan Kram, SRFSN Facilitator, at 303-257-0430
About the Southern Rockies Fire Science Network: http://www.srockiesfsn.org or http://www.srmeconsortium.org

Southern California and Central Colorado : Tree Planting Post-Fire Perspectives

Crews work on planting ponderosa pine seedlings Thursday in the burned area of Colorado's Pike National Forest as part of the Hayman reforestation project. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

Here’s an article from the Denver Post, Replanting forests in Colorado wildfire areas has benefit for water supply from April 13.

It’s interesting to compare these perspectives on tree planting. I wonder if tree planting post fire has “critics” in Colorado, or the reporter didn’t interview them..???

“There is a direct connection between healthy forests and sustainable supplies for clean water,” Denver Water spokeswoman Stacy Chesney said. “Planting trees will help re-establish the ponderosa pine forests that would otherwise take more than a hundred years to grow naturally.”

“Nature runs the game”

Sediment eroding into streams and the river after rainstorms “increases our cost of treating water” and has forced operational suspensions, Aurora Water spokesman Greg Baker said. “We want to get ahead of this.”

Forest experts say it’s too early to assess the extent to which tree-planting may spur regeneration of forests. Current targets call for replanting across 1,085 Hayman fire acres this year, with the goal of eventually replanting one-third of the burned acres, and also starting on the Buffalo Creek fire area.

Residents who still live in the former forests along the upper South Platte applauded the tree-planting but say federal foresters should have begun this work with greater intensity and focus 10 years ago in the immediate aftermath of the fire.

Drought this spring has helped, because rainstorms trigger erosion, Westcreek resident Steve Schnoes said, out with his wife, Tanya, cutting back trees near their home as a precaution in case of a new fire.

“Nature runs the game here,” but planting is a necessary response, Schnoes said. “We’re going to look like the moon if we don’t.”

Before and After- Utah Style

In driving between Cedar City and Bryce Canyon, I was struck at the severe mortality from bark beetles. Here is what I saw the first time. The entire area had severe bark beetle mortality, with surviving aspen trees. I really doubt that any green trees were cut, as the bark beetles were still busily chewing and doing their thing.

The next time I drove through, I saw where snags had been felled and removed, resulting in this scene. I’m guessing that they skidded the logs over the snow, or used a helicopter. My bet is on over-the-snow skidding. This area is right at the summit, where the intersection to Cedar Breaks is. There are homes on the other side of the ridge. I like what they did here.

www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead

Given the many discussions we’ve had on this blog concerning the top of restoration, this new research from Katharine N. Suding, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California, Berkeley should be of great interest to readers.  The title of the paper is “Toward an Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead” (PDF copy here).  Below is a teaser from the Abstract (emphasis added). – mk

Abstract
As an inevitable consequence of increased environmental degradation and anticipated future environmental change, societal demand for ecosystem restoration is rapidly increasing. Here, I evaluate successes and failures in restoration, how science is informing these efforts, and ways to better address decision-making and policy needs. Despite the multitude of restoration projects and wide agreement that evaluation is a key to future progress, comprehensive evaluations are rare. Based on the limited available information, restoration outcomes vary widely. Cases of complete recovery are frequently characterized by the persistence of species and abiotic processes that permit natural regeneration. Incomplete recovery is often attributed to a mixture of local and landscape constraints, including shifts in species distributions and legacies of past land use. Lastly, strong species feedbacks and regional shifts in species pools and climate can result in little to no recovery. More forward-looking paradigms, such as enhancing ecosystem services and increasing resilience to future change, are exciting new directions that need more assessment. Increased evidence-based evaluation and cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer will better inform a wide range of critical restoration issues such as how to prioritize sites and interventions, include uncertainty in decision making, incorporate temporal and spatial dependencies, and standardize outcome assessments. As environmental policy increasingly embraces restoration, the opportunities have never been greater.

Nature Conservancy and Groups Collaborate for Restoration of the Cherokee National Forest

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this piece from the East here.


Nature Conservancy and Groups Collaborate for Restoration of the Cherokee National Forest

Recommendations will be presented to Forest Service staff on March 23, 2012

The North Zone of the Cherokee National Forest is in need of some help. Spanning seven counties in upper east Tennessee, the North Zone is an incredible asset to the local economies of the region—as a supply of drinking water, a tourism destination and a source of forest products.

However, past land management practices, including those prior to the land coming under public ownership as a national forest early in the 20th century—and future threats from invasive forest pests—left large portions of the forest in need of restoration. In order for the Cherokee’s North Zone to continue to be a strong, resilient and healthy ecosystem, the forest is now in need of a sound plan for restoration. A good restoration plan should be based on science, garner public support and consider varied management approaches including active methods such as regeneration cuts, targeted thinning and prescribed fire and passive methods that would allow nature to take its own course.

Many different individuals and organizations are passionate about their concerns for the Cherokee National Forest, but in the past they have not all agreed about how this national forest should be managed. That long-term lack of cohesion, coupled with strained budgets and planning hurdles, resulted in a situation where the necessary forest restoration was a very elusive target.

Two and a half years ago, in partnership with Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy convened a diverse group of stakeholders to determine what landscape restoration for the North Zone should look like. “It was time to think outside of the box and do things differently,” says Tom Speaks, the Cherokee National Forest Supervisor. The assembled group was made up of environmentalists, sportsmen, loggers and forest managers, and they have worked for two years to develop a set of consensus-based recommendations to the Forest Service about how forest restoration should be conducted in the North Zone of the Cherokee National Forest.

The members of the group—the Cherokee National Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative Steering Committee— had much work to do in considering the available science and the diverse viewpoints on the Cherokee National Forest. To arrive at recommendations, the committee polled the public, pored over computer-simulation models, considered numerous alternatives and finally came to consensus on a slate of recommendations. “It was a challenge at times, but, we used the best available science and we worked together to achieve our goals,” says Parker Street, a local sportsman representing the Ruffed Grouse Society on the committee.

On March 23, 2012, representatives from the steering committee will come together to celebrate their work and present the Forest Service staff with their final restoration recommendations. “This is a really important step in the right direction,” says committee member Catherine Murray, representing Cherokee Forest Voices, a local conservation organization.

The Cherokee National Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative Steering Committee members are:

Geoff Call, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Dennis Daniel, National Wild Turkey Federation

John Gregory, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Steve Henson, Southern Appalachian Multiple Use Council

Josh Kelly, At Large-Environmental Community

Dwight King, Sullivan County Commissioner/Logger

Joe McGuiness, Cherokee National Forest

Katherine Medlock, Tennessee Chapter of The Nature Conservancy

Catherine Murray, Cherokee Forest Voices

Danny Osborne, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry

Terry Porter, Tennessee Forestry Association

Mark Shelley, Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition

Parker Street, Ruffed Grouse Society

To find out more about the initiative and to read the final recommendations, please visit www.communityplan.net/cherokee/

More on CFLRP and Restoration

As Marek Smith says in this comment , linked to this document
titled “Increasing the pace of restoration and job creation on our national forests.

there is much going on right now. I won’t be able to catch up until the weekend. But here’s a piece from Rob Chaney of the Missoulian:

U.S. Forest Service plans to boost timber production, forest health work

ttp://missoulian.com/news/local/u-s-forest-service-plans-to-boost-timber-production-forest/article_710829e8-4e16-11e1-aff9-001871e3ce6c.html

The U.S. Forest Service wants to speed up work on national forests, for both timber production and forest health.
“Collaboration is most effective in getting forests managed in a proper way,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a conference call on Thursday. “We want to move beyond the conflicts in the past that slowed progress down. We’re going to look to encourage environmentalists, folks in the forest industry, people who live in forest communities and other stakeholders to work for healthy forests.”
Vilsack pledged the Forest Service would boost its lumber production from 2.4 billion board feet in 2011 to 3 billion board feet by 2014. That would come through a 20 percent increase in forest acres treated over the next three years.
Those treatments also include fuels reduction, reforestation, stream restoration, road decommissioning, culvert work and prescribed fire, as well as timber harvesting.
Much of it will be paid for with $40 million in new congressional funding for local forest projects this year. That’s up from $25 million last year, the first time Congress authorized money for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.
Montana’s Southwest Crown of the Continent forest project was one of the first 10 selected for the program, receiving $4 million in 2011. It should receive that amount again in 2012, according to Forest Service director of forest management Cal Joyner.
“By increasing the scale of areas we look at, we’re planning and considering larger parts of the landscape,” Joyner said. “That leads to a greater pace of activity.”
Idaho had one project approved last year in the Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater region. This year, the state has two more: the Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters Project for $2.4 million and the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative for $324,000.
The board feet expansion could have a significant effect in the Forest Service’s Region 1, which includes Montana, according to Montana Wood Products Association director Julia Altemus.
“That would be about 360 million board feet coming off Region 1,” Altemus said. “That’s a lot. The target is usually 270 million to 300 million, so they’re looking at doubling that. I’m not sure they’re going to have the personnel capacity (in the Forest Service) to do that.”
The acceleration should not cause problems with local state initiatives like Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester’s proposed Forest Jobs and Restoration Act or a similar measure proposed in Oregon, Vilsack said. Those measures would also require the Forest Service to increase the pace of forest work, such as Tester’s mandate for treating at least 10,000 acres of Montana national forests a year.
“I don’t see we’re going to be working in conflict,” Vilsack said. “We’re going to be working cooperatively and collaboratively to make sure that we get the best use of the forest opportunities we have.”
The Forest Service work would also include bark beetle treatment, projects to improve watershed health and wildlife habitat, improving markets for wood products like biomass-based fuels and efforts to boost recreation opportunities, Vilsack said.

Obama admin vows to speed restorations, increase timber harvests E&E News

Obama admin vows to speed restorations, increase timber harvests
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

The Obama administration announced plans to accelerate today the restoration of 193 million acres of forests and grasslands, a proposal expected to significantly increase timber harvests.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also announced more than a dozen new collaborative restoration projects made possible in large part by a boost in 2012 funding.

The projects, which are outlined in a new report, will include forest thinning, invasive species removal and road decommissionings. They are designed to combat threats like wildfires, bark beetle infestations and climate change.

They are also designed to bolster logging jobs by increasing timber harvests 25 percent by 2014.

“These efforts will increase our ability to fight fires effectively,” Vilsack said in a conference call this afternoon with reporters. “This is about jobs. It’s about proper restoration. It’s about safer communities.”

Most of the new projects will be funded under the collaborative forest landscape restoration program, an initiative established in 2009 by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) as part of an omnibus public lands bill.

The program received its maximum allowed $40 million this year, up from $25 million in 2011.

Vilsack said the Forest Service will be funding 13 new restoration projects, on top of the 10 projects that were approved for funding in 2010.

Activities will include thinning for wildfire reduction, stream restorations, road decommissioning and replacing culverts for fish passage as well as prescribed fire, said Mary Wagner, associate chief of the Forest Service. The agency expects to increase the acres it mechanically treats by 20 percent over the next two years.

“That’s well supported by the collaborative, science-based approaches the … projects are using,” she said.

The collaborative program has garnered support from environmentalists, timber groups and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Bingaman and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo (R) last fall successfully urged colleagues to boost CFLR funding from $30 million to $40 million (E&E Daily, Nov. 10, 2011).

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, last summer credited the program’s Four Forest Restoration Initiative in Arizona — a $3.5 million project that will treat up to 50,000 acres per year of southwestern ponderosa pine — for reducing the severity of wildfires in his state. The Center for Biological Diversity, a frequent litigant against forest projects, has also endorsed the initiative.

The new projects to receive CFLR funding are:

•Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project in California, $605,000.
•Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration Project in Missouri, $617,000.
•Shortleaf-Bluestem Community Project in Arkansas and Oklahoma, $342,000.
•Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters Project in Idaho, $2,450,000.
•Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative in Idaho, $324,000.
•Southern Blues Restoration Coalition in Oregon, $2.5 million.
•Lakeview Stewardship Project in Oregon, $3.5 million.
•Zuni Mountain Project in New Mexico, $400,000.
•Grandfather Restoration Project in North Carolina, $605,000.
•Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group Cornerstone Project in California, $730,000.
In addition, the following three projects were approved to receive Forest Service funding in 2012:

•Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 in Washington, $968,000.
•Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration in Arkansas, $959,000.
•Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Reduction, De Soto National Forest, national forests in Mississippi, $2.7 million.

Working Towards Common Ground in Idaho

x-foes aim for common ground on Idaho forests
Environmentalists, timber executives, scientists and others converge on Boise to begin the hard part of their forest collaboration work.
BY ROCKY BARKER – [email protected]
Copyright: © 2012 Idaho Statesman
Published: 01/31/12

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/31/1974737/ex-foes-aim-for-common-groundon.html

The easy work for former adversaries in the Idaho timber wars was to start talking and develop trust.

Now those environmentalists, foresters and loggers are testing the strong relationships they’ve forged in collaborative efforts state-wide. The Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership is tackling the hard issues about how much timber can be cut and thinned to restore healthy forests, and how that will be paid for.

“So much of it comes down to what we are leaving behind,” said Jonathan Oppenheimer, senior associate for the Idaho Conservation League. “More and more, we’re having these discussions.”

The collaborators are in Boise this week for two days of conferences aimed at finding common ground on thinning or cutting the forests of North Idaho.

There is consensus among environmentalists and industry foresters that thinning the ponderosa pine-dominated forests makes them healthier, more resilient and more resistant to large-scale fires. Ponderosa pines make up most of the forests around Boise.

There is less agreement about the stands of trees that grow in the wetter, higher elevations — “mixed severity forests” — that make up most of North Idaho.

But forest science is beginning to suggest that these large areas of mixed-severity forests can, and perhaps should, be cut.

HUMANS IN THE FORESTS

Collaborators are forging new paths in places like the Clearwater-Nez Perce National Forest of Central Idaho. There, 3 million acres of national forest is in wilderness and roadless areas, essentially off-limits to logging. It’s the other 1 million acres for which the two sides are seeking to develop a restoration schedule — with the goal of finding an approach that improves fish and wildlife habitat, allows the right kind of fires and allows a steady, predictable pipeline of forest products.

In most western forests, fire is the main ecologic disturbance. That’s true for North Idaho’s roadless and wilderness areas.

But outside those areas, humans — through logging, thinning and even prescribed burning — are the primary actor on the forest’s ecology.

“Man is the disturbance agent here,” said Bill Higgins, the resource manager of the Idaho Forest Group in Grangeville, one of the larger timber companies in the state. “If you buy that, then you are a long way down the road.”

The idea is that through careful combinations of thinning, prescribed burning and logging — with stream buffers to protect endangered salmon and bull trout — loggers can mimic the effect of fire at keeping the forests healthy and not dangerously overgrown.

As part of this holistic approach, old eroding roads would be obliterated, stands of old-growth trees protected and wildlife habitat enhanced.

Higgins has two goals. One is to make the projects — which the Forest Service calls “stewardship contracts” — big enough to keep workers on the job for a couple of years and provide a dependable supply of logs for mill owners.

The other is a larger goal: Through the kind of landscape management that environmentalists have pushed for two decades, Higgins hopes to persuade the Forest Service to increase the planned harvests in its forest plans to provide a solid foundation for the industry so that he and other companies can market the byproducts of restoration.

PAYING FOR RESTORATION

It all comes down to financing, said David New, a former vice president for timber land for Boise Cascade, who is now a consultant.

For a company to attract the capital necessary, the supply of timber products has to be assured for at least seven years, which is the pay-back period on the loan.

“Ask a bank to finance just a third of it, and if you’ve only secured fiber for one or two years, they’re going to show you the door,” he said.

This is where it gets tough for environmentalists. Their supporters don’t want to return to the time when pressure to assure a certain amount of timber — “get out the cut” — took precedence over protecting water quality and wildlife.

Oppenheimer and representatives of national environmental groups, like John McCarthy of the Wilderness Society’s Idaho office, have to bring their own constituencies along as they face these questions.

“There is a lot of forested ground where we can find agreement,” Oppenheimer said. “It’s not an all-or-nothing approach.

“But it takes time to build that trust to have more aggressive logging in some of these forests.”

PRESERVING A HEALTHY FOREST INDUSTRY

Last week, the Forest Service released a new set of forest planning rules designed to encourage restoration and collaboration, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. The agency hopes to reduce the amount of litigation and the time and cost of planning.

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in an interview that the agency wants to support industry growth so it can strengthen communities and carry out its agenda.

“Without that industry,” said Tidwell, “there is no way we are going to be able to do the work we need to restore our forests.”

Note from Sharon: This is put on by the Idaho Environmental Forum, a group with a mission not unlike this blog.

The Idaho Environmental Forum is an informal, nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational association whose sole mission is to promote serious, cordial, and productive discourse on a broad range of environmental policies affecting Idaho. We take no positions, advocate no causes, and endorse no candidates. Our goal is simply to provide a forum for dialog from a range of perspectives.

I wonder if other states have groups like this? It will be interesting to see what comes from this meeting.