Uncategorized

Here’s an interesting paper from the PNW Research Station….

Reducing Fuels and Advancing Equity: Incorporating Environmental Justice Into Hazardous Fuels Management

“The researchers … assess the distribution of benefits to local populations created by 10 years of fuels management on 12 national forests in the Western United States. They found that, for the most part, the 12 national forests equitably distributed benefits from fuels reduction projects. However, each for­est had one or more “hotspots” where a localized lack of benefit for concentrated racial or ethnic minority populations raised environmental justice concerns. Interviews with Forest Service manag­ers provided insight into why hotspots occurred and revealed how environmen­tal justice could be more effectively inte­grated into land management procedures.”

To what extent, if any, do forest plans look at future fires and other disturbances, and how to respond to them? Would it be beneficial to address this at the forest plan level?

Excerpt from an editorial by The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board:

Century-old forest management practices by the Forest Service, Cal Fire and the logging industry have led to intense standoffs in recent decades among environmentalists, scientists and fire experts who believe we have managed our forests under a profit motive, not resiliency.

They are not necessarily wrong. As The Bee’s Ryan Sabalow and Dale Kasler noted in a recent story about this conflict, “much of the sturdy old-growth was cut down, and what grew back in its place were dense stands of small trees and brush,” they wrote. “The stage was set for an era of catastrophic fires like the sorts California is experiencing every summer.”

In addition to fighting fires instead of controlling them, the Forest Service allowed logging companies to decimate California forests for much of the 20th century, with little concern about the ecological harm they were causing. This gave environmentalists all the ammunition they needed to question the motives of an agency that oversees millions of acres of California forestland.

But now is the time for the environmental left to stand down. California’s forests are in terrible shape after decades of unchecked commercial logging and aggressive fire suppression. Conditions have only gotten worse as climate change dries our forests and reduces rainfall, aiding recent record-breaking megafires that threaten populated areas and wipe out entire habitats.

By weaponizing federal protections — such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act — to obstruct or outright kill various wildfire prevention projects, environmentalists imperil the very ecosystems they wish to protect.

Organizations like the John Muir Project, Conservation Congress and other allied groups have been accused by leading experts of spreading “agenda-driven science” that promotes specific unsupported narratives and avoids data to back up their litigious claims. At least 111 scientists have co-authored at least 41 scientific papers to rebut their dubious methods, The Bee reported, an extraordinary sign of how problematic these groups have become. Some of their disputed claims have caused the courts to delay important fire prevention projects.

There is an interesting tussle over the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project, on the Santa Fe National Forest. Over the next 10-15 years, the forest says “The project will use prescribed fire as the main tool to restore resiliency to these frequent-fire forests, with small-tree thinning as needed to allow fire to play its natural role in the ecosystem.”

Recently, a group called The Forest Advocate distributed an 8-page flier to the residents of Santa Fe. The group is opposed to the project — “Thinning projects such as the two large-scale projects proposed for the Santa Fe National Forest are highly impactful and damaging to the forest ecosystem.” The other project is the Encino Vista Landscape Restoration Project. The group calls on the forest to produce an EIS for the Santa Fe Mountains project, rather than the EA it recently published.

On Oct. 16, in a letter in a Santa Fe newspaper, two at the University of Arizona professors, Matthew Hurteau and Thomas W. Swetnam, disagreed with the group’s position, writing that “Restoring frequent, low-severity fire, like those accomplished with prescribed burning, is supported by the extensive body of scientific research on this topic.”

FWIW, the Forest Advocate invited Dominick DellaSala to speak via a webinar on the project. DellaSala stated that the Santa Fe NF is “going down a path that could lead to ecological crisis.” The video is very long — almost 2 hours — and I didn’t listen to it all. DellaSala mentioned his latest book, “Conservation Science and Advocacy for a Planet in Peril: Speaking Truth to Power.” Chapter 1 is entitled “The Nuts and Bolts of Science-based Advocacy.” Perhaps this book would make for an interesting discussion here on Smokey Wire.

This op-ed by Mitch Daniels on the book “Unsettled,” by Steven E. Koonin, is an interesting viewpoint, though not directly related to forest management or planning: “This climate change contrarian gives us an important reminder about science in general.”

We have never expected much truthfulness or integrity from our politicians, whose self-interest in publicity and campaign dollars too often outweighs any scruples about scientific precision. Nonprofit “public interest” groups raise fortunes on forecasts of doom, often on the flimsiest evidence. The modern news media, chasing the dollars that titillating, click-catching headlines bring, have been, if anything, worse than the political class in discussing climate change. [emphasis added] Koonin serves up multiple examples, with descriptions such as “deliberately misleading” and “blatantly misrepresenting.”

The truth’s last line of defense should be the scientific community, but here Koonin indicts those of his fellows who have discarded a commitment to the truth — the whole truth, and nothing but — in favor of their own view of wise policy. “Distorting science to further a cause is inexcusable,” he says, a violation of scientists’ “overriding ethical obligation.”

A few minutes after reading the essay, I came across a Sacramento Been article with a provocative headline, “‘Self-serving garbage.’ Wildfire experts escalate fight over saving California forests.” It’s essentially Chad Hanson vs. scientists who disagree with his messages and methods. I wouldn’t post this if Hanson didn’t get such an unusually large amount of news coverage (such as “As California burns, some ecologists say it’s time to rethink forest management,” in the LA Times on August 21, $).

An excerpt from the Bee article:

In an extraordinary series of articles published in scientific journals, fire scientists are attacking Hanson’s and his allies’ claims that the woods need to be left alone. These scientists say the activists are misleading the public and bogging down vital work needed to protect wildlife, communities and make California’s forests more resilient to wildfire.

“I and my colleagues are getting really tired of the type of activism that pretends to be science and in fact is just self-serving garbage,” said Crystal Kolden, a professor of wildfire science at UC Merced and co-author of a journal article that rebutted Hanson’s arguments. “If a lot of these environmental groups continue to stand by these antiquated and really counterproductive viewpoints, all we’re going to see is more catastrophic wildfire that destroys the very forests that they pretend to love.”

Hanson’s “counterproductive viewpoints” also have been presented in testimony in Congress, before the House Agriculture Committee last year in September, in a hearing on “The 2020 Wildfire Year: Response And Recovery Efforts.” In written testimony, Hanson and a colleague wrote that:

Vegetation is not driving wildfires: our forests aren’t overstocked. Contrary to the statements made at the hearing, a century of fire suppression has not exacerbated fire risk or intensity in our forests. Our forests are not ‘‘overgrown’’.

Our forests aren’t overstocked? Well, all of our forests, but certainly far too many are overstocked. I reckon few foresters, wildfire managers, or scientists would agree with Hanson.

So why does Hanson continue to be a media darling? Daniels’ line serves here: “The modern news media, chasing the dollars that titillating, click-catching headlines….“

The USGS has a page describing 3 studies of the northern spotted owl. Excerpts:

Study #1: Franklin and his colleagues found that northern spotted owl populations have experienced significant yearly declines, translating to a 65-85% population decrease on many of the study areas between 1995 and 2017. Barred owl presence on northern spotted owl territories was the primary factor negatively affecting apparent survival, recruitment, and ultimately, rates of population change. Without removal or reduction of barred owl populations, it’s likely northern spotted owls will become locally extinct from portions of their range. The species would possibly linger on as small populations in other areas until those populations are eliminated by catastrophic events, such as wildfire, resulting in its extinction.

Study #2: Using data collected from 4,118 northern spotted owls in Oregon and Washington from 1990 to 2017, the researchers found the percent of northern spotted owls dispersing from their territories each year has increased by more than 17% in recent times. The increases coincided with a rapid increase in numbers of invasive barred owls as they quickly colonized Pacific Northwest forests and displaced northern spotted owls from their preferred breeding sites.

Study #3: Removal of barred owls had a strong, positive effect on the survival of northern spotted owls, stopping their long-term population declines. After removals, northern spotted owl population declines stabilized in areas with removals but continued to decrease sharply in areas without removals. “The results of the study showed that long-term survival of northern spotted owls will depend heavily on reducing the negative impacts of barred owls while simultaneously addressing other threats such as habitat loss,” added Wiens.

Nothing all that surprising here. I’d like to see a region-wide study of the effects of wildfire on NSO and barred owls. One might surmise that, with millions of acres of post-fire habitat, barred owls will be at a further advantage.

An article in Phys.org discusses a paper of interest here on Smokey Wire, though it does not address wilderness or indigenous practices in the US. Excerpt:

Aboriginal people in Australia view wilderness, or what is called “wild country,” as sick land that’s been neglected and not cared for. This is the opposite of the romantic understanding of wilderness as pristine and healthy—a view which underpins much non-Indigenous conservation effort.

In a recent paper for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we demonstrate how many iconic “wilderness” landscapes—such as the Amazon, forests of Southeast Asia and the western deserts of Australia, are actually the product of long-term management and maintenance by Indigenous and local peoples.

The authors of the paper, “Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness,” state that:

“Rather than espousing the exclusive wilderness territories as an antidote to the ills of the Anthropocene, externally funded, designed, and implemented conservation initiatives must now align with or cede to Indigenous and local governance initiatives that drive research, policy making, and variegated landscape management.”

The Peñasco least chipmunk, a rare resident of New Mexico’s high country—and an indicator of failing ecosystem health—has been impacted by climate change and habitat loss from logging and livestock grazing. This week, the U.S. Forest Service proposed listing this rare animal (which inhabits National Forest System lands in just two mountain ranges in New Mexico) as endangered under the ESA. Here’s the press release we just sent out. -mk

SANTA FE, NM—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week proposed to list the Peñasco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus), endemic to just two mountain ranges in New Mexico, as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service also proposed to designate 6,574 acres of critical habitat for the species.

“These rare animals have been on the brink of extinction for decades, and we’re glad to see the Fish and Wildlife Service finally move them out of bureaucratic purgatory and towards recovery,” said Joe Bushyhead, endangered species policy advocate at WildEarth Guardians.

Historically, the Peñasco least chipmunk only existed in two locations: high-elevation meadows in the White Mountains and mature ponderosa pine forests in the Sacramento Mountains. Logging decimated Peñasco least chipmunk habitat in the Sacramento Mountain, where the species hasn’t been seen there since 1966. A small population persists the White Mountains, but it too is declining as a consequence of habitat loss from climate change, lack of genetic diversity, disease, and other stressors. The species could quickly go extinct if faced with a disease outbreak, large wildfire, or drought.

WildEarth Guardians petitioned the Service to list the Peñasco least chipmunk as threatened or endangered in 2011. In 2012, the Service concluded the chipmunk deserved ESA protections, but deferred further action on the basis that listing was warranted but precluded by other higher priorities.

The ESA provides a critical safety net for imperiled species like the Peñasco least chipmunk. Since its enactment in 1973, the ESA has saved 99% of listed species from extinction. Conversely, more than 40 species have gone extinct while awaiting listing.

An RMRS paper published last month, “Megafire causes persistent loss of an old-forest species,” finds that “The negative effects of megafires on spotted owls are not ephemeral, but instead are likely to be enduring.”

Key Findings

• Extensive severe fire within spotted owl territories resulted in both immediate territory abandonment and prolonged lack of re-colonization by owls six years post-fire.
• Each additional 10 hectares of severe fire decreased the likelihood that owls would persist in a territory by 7.8% and decreased the likelihood a territory would be recolonized post-fire by 8.3%.
• Owl territories that experienced a greater mix of burn intensities (or high “pyrodiversity”) tended to persist after the fire.
• Salvage logging did not explain variation in post-fire persistence or recolonization; effects to owls could only be attributed to severe fire extent and pyrodiversity.
• Given the severe and persistent impacts of the King Fire on spotted owls, our work suggests that fuels reduction that limits megafires could benefit this species.

FWIW, Chad Hanson’s work in mentioned:

“In some cases, scientists have debated whether it is the disturbance itself (e.g., fire) or the subsequent management activities (e.g., salvage logging) that has caused estimated effects on sensitive wildlife species such as spotted owls (Hanson, Bond, & Lee, 2018; Jones et al., 2019). It is often the case that fire and salvage effects are confounded and thus cannot easily be separated (Clark, Anthony, & Andrews, 2013; Lee, Bond, & Siegel, 2012). In our study, we were able to separate these two effects and we unequivocally determined that severe fire, and not salvage logging, was correlated with the observed local declines in spotted owl site occupancy. We, thus, reject the hypothesis that salvage logging drove or even contributed to the observed post-fire decline. Given that both severe fire and salvage logging were included as competing covariates, the salvage effects were uninformative across all scales.”

Oregon Public Broadcasting has a story about the new wilderness entry reservation system in central Oregon.

Crowds are smaller, but no-shows have plagued Oregon wilderness permit system

“People who bought permits before the start of the season were less likely to show than people who bought them as they came available throughout the summer. Still, 27% of people who made reservations during seven-day rolling windows were also no-shows, according to the Forest Service data.”

Covid may be one factor.

This system was the subject of much debate at the Mt. Hood/Willamette RAC meetings in 2019 and 2020. Some RAC members objected to any fees, others to the problem of people unaware of the permit requirement arriving at a trailhead and facing illegal entry or backtracking to a location where the cell signal is strong enough to buy one online… if any remained available.